1,1  Wu 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


http://archive.org/details/reportofheightsoOOnewy 


REPORT 


OF  THE 

HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS 
COMMISSION 

TO  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  THE  HEIGHT,  SIZE 
AND  ARRANGEMENT  OF 
BUILDINGS 

OP  THE 

BOARD  OF  ESTIMATE  AND  APPORTIONMENT 
OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK 


DECEMBER  23,  1913 


AA 


H EIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

Edward  M.  Bassett,  Chairman 

Edward  C.  Blum  C.  Grant  La  Farge 

Edward  W.  Brown  Nelson  P.  Lewis 

William  H.  Ciiesebrough  George  T.  Mortimer 

William  A.  Cokeley  Lawson  Purdy 

Otto  M.  Eidlitz  Allan  Robinson 

Abram  I.  Elkus  August  F.  Schwarzler 

Burt  L.  Fenner  Franklin  S.  Tomlin 

J.  Monroe  Hewlett  Lawrence  Veiller 

Robert  W.  Higbie  Gaylord  S.  White 

George  B.  Ford,  Secretary 


Committees 

Executive  Committee — Edward  M.  Bassett,  Chairman,  George  T. 
Mortimer,  C  Grant  La  Farge,  Allan  Robinson,  Gaylord 
S.  White,  Lawson  Purdy,  Lawrence  Veiller,  Nelson  P. 
Lewis. 

Office  Buildings,  Hotels  and  Theatres — Allan  Robinson,  Chair- 
man, Otto  M.  Eidlitz,  Burt  L.  Fenner,  William  H. 
Ciiesebrough. 

Application  of  Zone  or  District  Method — Lawson  Purdy,  Chair- 
man, Nelson  P.  Lewis,  Robert  W.  Higbie,  Edward  W. 

Brown. 

Dwellings — All  Buildings  used  for  Residence  except  Hotels — C. 
Grant  La  Faroe,  Chairman,  Lawrence-  Veiller,  August  F. 
Schwarzler,  Gaylord  S.  White. 

Buildings  Used  in  Whole  or  in  Part  for  Industry — Gaylord  S. 
White,  Chairman,  Edward  C.  Blum,  Abram  I.  Elkus.  Frank- 
lin S.  Tomlin. 

Fifth  Avenue  Conditions — George  T.  Mortimer.  Chairman,  J. 
Monroe  Hewlett,  Abram  I.  Elkus,  William  A.  Cokeley. 


Staff 

GlOBGH  B.  Ford,  Secretary  and  Director  of  Investigations. 

Robert  II.  Whittfn,  Editor  of  Report  and  Special  Investigator. 

Herbert  S.  Swan.  Statistician  and  Special  Investigator. 

Frank  BACKUS  WILLIAMS,  Investigator  and  Writer  on  Districting 

Methods  in  Europe. 
A.  E.  Heffeli-  inciF.r,  Head  Draughtsman. 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL 


December  23,  191 3. 

George  McAneny,  Lewis  H.  Pounds  and  Cyrus  C.  Miller, 
the  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportion- 
ment on  Heights  of  Buildings: 

Gentlemen — At  once,  after  the  appointment  of  the  Advis- 
ory Commission,  we  formed  in  co-operation  with  your  committee 
a  working  staff,  with  George  B.  Ford  at  its  head.  Through  the 
courtesy  of  the  Court  House  Board,  ample  quarters  were  fur- 
bished us  at  115  Broadway,  Manhattan.  In  general  the  result  of 
the  work  of  the  staff  is  shown  in  the  charts  submitted  herewith, 
and  the  data  contained  in  the  special  articles  in  the  appendices. 
The  staff  did  much  additional  work  in  assisting  the  members  of 
the  Commission  in  all  of  the  matters  treated  in  the  report  and  in 
making  calculations  for  the  use  of  the  committees.  We  consider 
that  we  have  been  especially  fortunate  in  securing  such  compe- 
tent and  earnest  helpers. 

The  Commission  was  divided  into  committees,  as  shown  on 
the  preceding  page,  in  order  that  particular  fields  of  work  might 
receive  constant  attention.  The  Commission  as  a  whole,  how- 
ever, held  all  hearings,  passed  on  all  the  data  and  formulated  all 
of  the  conclusions.  As  the  work  progressed  it  became  evident 
that  our  report  should  emphasize,  first,  regulation  of  high  build- 
ings, second,  districting,  and  third,  Fifth  Avenue  conditions. 
The  Commission  and  its  staff  gave  a  great  deal  of  attention  to 
factories  and  residences,  as  the  charts  will  show,  but  we  deemed 
it  best  to  omit  making  specific  recommendations  regarding  such 
buildings  for  the  reason  that  active  work  is  being  carried  on  bv 
the  State  Factory  Investigating  Commission  and  the  Tenement 
House  Committee  of  the  Charity  Organization  Society,  and  we 
thought  best  to  center  our  recommendations  on  fields  covered  by 
no  other  official  bodies  in  this  city.  We  hope  that  our  data  re- 
garding factories  and  residences  will  be  a  help  to  all  students  of 
these  subjects.    It  will  be  noticed,  however,  that  factories  and 


iv  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

residences  come  to  the  front  in  our  recommendations  on  district- 
ing. Although  a  large  amount  of  work  was  done  by  each  of  our 
committees  and  many  committee  meetings  held,  the  greatest 
labor  devolved  on  the  Committee  on  Office  Buildings  and  Hotels 
and  the  Committee  on  Districting.  The  rule  for  high  buildings 
was  mainly  prepared  by  the  Committee  on  Office  Buildings  dur- 
ing months  of  exacting  detail  work. 

The  Commission  held  a  long  series  of  conferences  at  which 
the  opinions  of  competent  specialists  were  heard  and  discussed. 
Some  of  those  who  attended  had  prepared  themselves  carefully 
or  brought  written  statements.  Many  organizations  took  a 
great  interest  in  our  work,  appointed  conference  committees  and 
in  some  cases  had  counsel  prepare  careful  briefs  for  our  con- 
sideration. All  of  the  title  companies  and  many  of  the  large 
lenders  on  real  estate  securities  freely  gave  us  the  benefit  of 
facts,  figures  and  opinions.  Owners  and  managers  of  buildings, 
both  large  and  small,  developers  of  vacant  land,  builders,  engi- 
neers, architects,  insurance  men,  fire  fighters  and  fire  protection 
experts,  housing  and  factory  specialists,  lawyers  and  physicians, 
city  officials  having  to  do  with  streets,  building  construction  and 
tenement  houses,  manufacturers  and  transportation  men  attended 
our  conferences  and  gave  us  an  opportunity  to  check  up  from 
every  angle  the  work  of  our  committees  and  the  staff.  We  have 
had  the  constant  and  valuable  assistance  of  the  Corporation 
Counsel,  Mr.  Watson  having  assigned  Louis  H.  Hahlo  to  attend 
our  meetings. 

Special  investigations  were  carried  on  in  a  number  of  the 
large  cities  of  our  country,  Canada  and  Europe.  For  official 
assistance  and  courtesies  in  all  these  cities  we  wish  to  express 
our  grateful  acknowledgment.  Furthermore  our  staff  has  corre- 
sponded with  officials  of  almost  every  large  city  of  the  world  that 
has  taken  up  the  subject  of  building  regulation.  Statutes  and 
ordinances  were  collected  and  a  record  of  the  experience  of 
other  cities  obtained  so  far  as  possible  at  first  hand.  The  co-oper- 
ation of  other  large  cities  and  the  great  interest  that  they  took 
in  helping  us  were  striking  and  delightful  features  of  our  work. 
We  ought  to  make  specific  public  acknowledgment  of  this  assist- 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL 


V 


ance,  for  in  many  cases  it  consisted  not  only  of  furnishing  opin- 
ions but  preparation  of  material. 

A  series  of  public  hearings  was  held  in  the  City  Hall,  notices 
thereof  being  sent  to  1325  organizations  throughout  the  city. 
The  daily  press  also  gave  notice  of  these  hearings.  They  were 
well  attended  and  helped  us  to  obtain  the  views  of  everybody 
who  desired  to  make  a  contribution  of  facts  or  opinions.  The 
Commission  has  at  all  times  invited  correspondence  and  many 
valuable  suggestions  have  come  to  us  in  this  way. 

We  submit  this  report  with  full  knowledge  that  it  is  not 
the  last  word  to  be  said  on  these  difficult  subjects.  We  firmly 
believe,  however,  that  our  recommendations  point  in  the  right 
direction.  We  carried  on  our  work  with  much  diversity  of  opin- 
ion, as  might  be  expected  in  a  commission  composed  of  men  of 
many  different  callings.  As  our  work  proceeded,  however,  we 
became  substantially  unanimous  on  the  main  questions  involved. 
This  report  is  not  the  result  of  compromises.  Continued  study 
of  the  facts  and  conditions  brought  us  to  a  harmonious  and 
united  opinion.    Respectfully  submitted, 

Heights  of  Buildings  Commission, 

Edward  M.  Bassett,  Chairman. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  I— INTRODUCTION    I 

CHAPTER  II— METHODS  OF  CONTROL   4 

Uniform  regulations  for  all  buildings   4 

Regulations  varying  with  the  class  of  building   4 

Regulations  varying  with  the  particular  district   7 

The  general  scope  of  constitutional  regulation   7 

Regulations  based  on  street  width   10 

Regulations  based  on  maintenance  of  a  minimum  angle  of  light   12 

Exceptions  to  angle  of  light  rule   13 

CHAPTER  III— HIGH  BUILDINGS   15 

Existing  conditions    15 

Public  safety    17 

Public  health    18 

Public  comfort  and  convenience   19 

Property  values    19 

Existing  height  and  area  limitations  in  New  York   21 

Height  limits    21 

Open  spaces    21 

Height  limitations  in  American  and  European  cities   22 

American  cities    23 

European  cities    23 

CHAPTER  IV— DISTRICTING    24 

Constitutionality  of  districting   24 

Necessity  for  districting   28 

Height  districts  in  American  cities   32 

Boston    32 

Baltimore    34 

Indianapolis    35 

Washington    36 

Regulation  of  open  spaces  in  Richmond,  Virginia   36 

Residential  and  industrial  districts  in  American  cities   38 

New  York  cities  of  the  second  class   38 

Massachusetts    39 

Minnesota    39 

Wisconsin    40 

Baltimore    4! 

Seattle    42 

Los  Angeles    43 

Ontario,  Canada    47 

Districting  in  German  cities   48 


viii 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


PACT 


CHAPTER  V— FIFTH  AVENUE  CONDITIONS   51 

CHAPTER  VI— CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS   56 

General  restrictions  for  all  buildings   57 

Proposed  regulations    61 

Application  to  certain  well  known  office  buildings   63 

Application  to  certain  well  known  hotels   65 

Districting    66 

Height  regulation  districts   66 

Industrial  districts  and  residential  districts   71 

Fifth  Avenue    74 

Factories    74 

Dwellings    75 

Conclusion    75 


APPENDICES 

Appendix  I — Proposed  charter  amendments   77 

Appendix  II — Present  restrictions  on  the  height,  size  and  arrangement  of 
buildings  in  New  York  City,  by  Herbert  S.  Swan : 

Height  of  buildings   79 

Size  of  non-fireproof  stores,  warehouses  and  factories   83 

Fire  appliances,  fire  escapes,  stairways,  and  fireproof  shutters  and 

doors    83 

Provisions  regarding  open  spaces   88 

Appendix  III — The  German  zone  building  regulations,  by  Frank  Backus 
Williams : 

The  German  zone  building  regulations   94 

German  law  and  administration   108 

Housing  in  German  cities   114 

Appendix  IV — Building  restrictions  in  various  cities,  by  Herbert  S.  Swan  : 

London    120 

Paris    127 

Boston    134 

Washington    150 

Los  Angeles    151 

Appendix  V — The  English  and  Swedish  town-planning  acts,  by  Herbert 

S.  Swan  : 

English  town-planning  Act  of  1909   155 

Swedish  town-planning  Act   157 

Appendix  VI — The  height  of  buildings  in  Manhattan   161 

Appendix  VII — The  relation  of  high  buildings  to  extra  insurance  pre- 
miums   166 

Appendix  VIII — Tabulation  of  vacancies  in  the  high  building  district...  169 


CONTENTS 


IX 


Appendix  IX — Statements  submitted  to  the  Commission : 


PAGE 

Ackerman,  Frederick  L   172 

Austin,  p   175 

Bangs,  F.  R   175 

Bannister,  William  P   175 

Bernard,  Alfred  D   176 

Bolton,  Reginald  Pelham   181 

Boyd,  David  Knickerbacker. . .  188 

Boynton,  Edward  B   191 

Brainerd,  W.  H   191 

Brentano,  Simon   192 

Brown,  Charles  S   192 

Browning,  William  H   195 

Brunner,  Arnold  W   106 

Bush,  Irving  T   198 

Cabot,  F.  E   199 

Carr,  Samuel    200 

Chambers,  Frank  R   200 

Coolidge,  J.  Randolph,  Jr   201 

Deeves,  Richard    202 

De  Forest,  Robert  W   203 

Devlin,  Edward  1   204 

Dinwiddie,  Miss  Emily  W   205 

Dwight,  Edmund    206 

Eliot,  Amory    209 

Elliman,  Lawrence  B   209 

Everett,  Arthur  G   210 

Ewing,  William    211 

Falconer,  Bruce  M   211 

Flagg,  Ernest   223 

Gernon,  James  L   228 

Greve,  William  M   229 

Guerin,  William    230 

Hardy,  Edward  R   231 

Harmon,  William  E   233 

Hastings,  Thomas   234 


PAGE 

Hoxie,  George  L   235 

Ingersoll,  Raymond  V   236 

Kelsey,  Clarence  H   238 

Kenlon,  John    239 

Killam,  Charles  W   241 

Knopf,  S.  Adolphus   242 

Laidlaw,  Walter    243 

Lindner,  Walter    244 

Litchfield,  Electus  D   245 

Lowinson,  Oscar   249 

Ludlow,  William  0   249 

Marks,  L.  B. .    251 

Marsh,  Benjamin  C   252 

Matthews,  Nathan   253 

Miller,  Rudolph  P   254 

Murphy,  John  J   255 

Nolen,  John    255 

Olmsted,  Frederick  Law   255 

Pope,  Robert  Anderson   260 

Say  ward,  William  H   263 

Shientag,  Bernard  L   263 

Shurtleff,  Arthur  A   265 

Simon,  Robert  E   265 

Smith,  Henry  Atterbury   266 

Smith,  Howard  C   268 

Stewart,  F.  J   275 

Storer,  John  H   268 

Sturgis,  R.  Clipston   268 

Veiller,  Frank  D   269 

Wead,  Leslie  C   271 

Weeks,  W.  B.  P.   272 

Wentworth,  Franklin  H   272 

White,  Alfred  T   273 

Woolson,  Ira  H   275 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 

Use  of  artificial  light  in  orifices  on  Exchange  Place  from  Broad  Street 
to  Broadway   opp.  56 

Use  of  artificial  light  in  offices  on  Exchange  Place  from  Broad  Street 
west   opp.  58 

Use  of  artificial  light  in  offices  on  New  Street  looking  south  from  Wall 
Street  opp.  58 

Effect  of  height  limit  on  uniformity  of  cornice  line  in  Vienna  opp.  100 


DIAGRAMS 

Diagram  I— Angles  of  light  and  light  obstruction  at  ground  floor  on 

street  front    13 

Diagram  II — Typical  building  on  interior  lot  fronting  on  a  sixty-foot 

street   opp.  60 

Diagram  III — Typical  building  on  interior  lot  running  through  from  one 

street  to  another  parallel  street  opp.  62 

Diagram  IV— Application  of  proposed  regulation  to  the  Fifth  Avenue 

Building   opp.  76 


X  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

PAGE 

Diagram  V— Application  of  proposed  regulation  to  the  Woolworth  Build- 

ing   opp.  76 

Diagram  VI— Application  of  proposed  regulation  to  the  New  Equitable 

Building   opp.  76 

Diagram  VII— Application  of  proposed  regulation  to  the  United  States 

Realty  Building   opp.  76 

Diagram  VIII— Application  of  proposed  regulation  to  the  Whitehall 

Building   opp.  76 

Diagram  IX — Application  of  proposed  regulation  to  the  Municipal  Build- 
ing  opp.  76 

Diagram  X — Application  of  proposed  regulation  to  Fuller  Building. .  .opp.  76 
Diagram  XI — Application  of  proposed  regulation  to  the  Knickerbocker 

Hotel   opp.  76 

Diagram  XII — Application   of   proposed   regulation   to   the  Biltmore 

Hotel   opp.  76 

Diagram  XIII — London  regulations — Rear  court   122 

Diagram  XIV — London  regulations — Rear  height   125 

Diagram  XV — London  regulations — Interior  court   126 

Diagram  XVI — Paris  regulations — Maximum  height  of  street  fagade   130 

Diagram  XVII — Paris  regulations — Intersection  of  front  and  rear  tan- 
gents   131 

Diagram  XVIII — Paris  regulations — Superimposed  arc  and  tangent   131 

Diagram  XIX — Paris  regulations — Height  at  intersecting  streets   132 

MAPS 

Map  I — General  height  of  all  buildings  in  Manhattan  opp.  16 

Map  II — Prevailing  height  of  factories  in  Manhattan  opp.  18 

Map  III — Details  of  heights  of  buildings  in  Manhattan  below  Cham- 
bers Street  opp.  22 

Map  IV — Unimproved  property  in  The  Bronx  opp.  24 

Map  V — Unimproved  property  in  Brooklyn  opp.  26 

Map  VI — Heights  of  residence  buildings  in  The  Bronx  opp.  28 

Map  VII — Heights  of  residence  buildings  in  Brooklyn  opp.  30 

Map  VIII — Districting  in  Boston  opp.  32 

Map  IX — Districting  in  Washington   opp.  36 

Map  X — Districting  in  Minneapolis  opp.  38 

Map  XI — Districting  in  Milwaukee  opp.  40 

Map  XII — Districting  in  Los  Angeles  opp.  44 

Map  XIII— Districting  in  Frankfort  opp.  48 

Map  XIV — Details  of  heights  of  buildings  on  Fifth  Avenue  opp.  52 

Map  XV — Percentage  of  lot  covered  in  Manhattan  opp.  66 

Map  XVI — Percentage  of  lot  covered  in  Brooklyn  opp.  68 

Map  XVII — Prevailing  land  values  in  Brooklyn  opp.  70 

Map  XVIII — Brick  buildings  outside  the  fire  limits  in  The  Bronx... opp.  72 

Map  XIX — Districting  in  Munich  opp.  104 

Map  XX— Prevailing  height  of  office  buildings,  hotels  and  storage  lofts 

in  Manhattan   opp.  162 

Map  XXI — General  classification  of  buildings  in  Manhattan  opp.  164 


CHAPTER  I— INTRODUCTION 

On  February  27,  19 13,  on  motion  of  George  McAneny, 
President  of  the  Borough  of  Manhattan,  the  Board  of  Estimate 
and  Apportionment  of  the  City  of  New  York  adopted  the  fol- 
lowing resolution : 

"  Whereas,  There  is  a  growing  sentiment  in  the  community 
to  the  effect  that  the  time  has  come  when  effort  should  be  made  to 
regulate  the  height,  size  and  arrangement  of  buildings  erected  within 
the  limits  of  the  City  of  New  York ;  in  order  to  arrest  the  seriously 
increasing  evil  of  the  shutting  off  of  light  and  air  from  other 
buildings  and  from  the  public  streets,  to  prevent  unwholesome  and 
dangerous  congestion  both  in  living  conditions  and  in  street  and 
transit  traffic  and  to  reduce  the  hazards  of  fire  and  peril  to  life;  and 

"  Whereas,  Under  the  provisions  of  section  407  of  the  Charter, 
the  height  and  size  of  buildings  may  be  regulated  by  city  ordinance, 
but  such  ordinance  must  first  have  the  approval  of  the  Board  of 
Estimate  and  Apportionment;  therefore  be  it 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Chairman  be  authorized  to  appoint  a  Com- 
mittee of  three  members  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportion- 
ment to  take  this  general  subject  under  consideration,  to  inquire 
into  and  investigate  conditions  actually  existing,  and  to  ascertain 
and  report  whether,  in  their  judgment,  it  is  desirable  to  regulate 
the  height,  size  and  arrangement  of  buildings  hereafter  to  be  erected 
or  altered  within  the  city  limits,  with  due  regard  to  their  location, 
character  or  uses,  to  examine  into  the  practice  and  the  comparative 
experience  of  other  cities  either  here  or  abroad,  and  to  consider 
and  report  upon  the  question  of  the  legal  right  of  the  City  of  New 
York  to  regulate  building  construction  in  the  manner  proposed; 
and  be  it  further 

"  Resolved,  That  such  Committee  may  also  investigate  and  re- 
port whether,  in  their  judgment,  it  would  be  lawful  and  desirable 
for  the  purpose  of  such  regulation  to  divide  the  City  into  districts 
or  into  zones,  and  to  prescribe  the  regulation  of  the  height,  size  and 
arrangement  of  buildings  upon  different  bases  in  such  different 
districts  or  zones ;  and  be  it  further 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Committee,  when  appointed,  may  in  turn 
appoint  an  advisory  commission  to  aid  it  in  its  work,  such  com- 
mission to  consist  of  as  many  members  as  the  Committee  may  de- 


2 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


termine,  serving  without  pay,  if  not  already  in  the  employment  of 
the  City,  but  including  representatives  of  each  of  the  several 
boroughs,  and  that  either  the  Committee  or  its  advisory  commission 
may  hold  public  hearings  in  each  of  the  boroughs  and  may  use  all 
appropriate  means  to  bring  the  subject  to  the  attention  of  the  tax- 
payers and  to  other  persons  who  may  be  interested;  and  be  it 
further 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  be  empowered  to  employ  a 
Secretary,  who  shall  also  be  the  Secretary  of  the  advisory  commis- 
sion, to  secure  such  expert  or  technical  advice  as  it  may  require  for 
its  proper  guidance,  and  to  incur  such  other  incidental  expenses  as 
it  may  from  time  to  time  find  necessary,  such  disbursements  to  be 
made  from  the  Contingent  Fund  of  this  Board,  but  not  to  exceed 
in  the  aggregate  the  sum  of  $15,000;  and  be  it  further 

"  Resolved,  That  the  said  Committee  be  instructed  to  submit  if 
practicable,  in  advance  of  any  general  report  that  it  may  make,  sug- 
gestions or  recommendations  with  relation  to  the  proposed  limita- 
tion of  the  height  of  buildings  upon  Fifth  Avenue,  between  One 
Hundred  and  Tenth  Street  and  Washington  Square,  in  the  Borough 
of  Manhattan,  and  within  certain  prescribed  areas  on  either  side 
of  the  said  avenue,  as  proposed  in  the  resolution  presented  to  this 
Board  on  May  9,  1912,  and  now  pending;  and  be  it  further 

"  Resolved,  That  such  Committee  shall  submit  its  final  report 
and  recommendations  to  the  Board  not  later  than  six  months  from 
the  date  of  its  appointment,  and  shall  thereupon  cease  to  exist." 

In  accordance  with  this  resolution,  the  then  Mayor,  William 
J.  Gaynor,  appointed  as  the  Heights  of  Buildings  Committee, 
George  McAneny,  President  of  the  Borough  of  Manhattan; 
Alfred  E.  Steers,  President  of  the  Borough  of  Brooklyn,  and 
Cyrus  C.  Miller,  President  of  the  Borough  of  The  Bronx.  Later 
Lewis  H.  Pounds,  President  of  the  Borough  of  Brooklyn,  was 
substituted  for  Mr.  Steers,  who  resigned  to  accept  the  position 
of  City  Magistrate.  The  Committee  on  Heights  of  Buildings 
appointed  the  Advisory  Commission  which  submits  this  report. 
Two  brief  extensions  of  time  were  granted  by  the  Board  of  Esti- 
mate and  Apportionment.  The  work  of  the  Advisory  Commis- 
sion was  carried  on  within  the  appropriation  made  in  the  fore- 
going resolution. 


INTRODUCTION  3 

It  was  not  considered  practicable  to  make  a  preliminary  report 
on  Fifth  Avenue  conditions.  The  injury  that  is  being  done  to 
Fifth  Avenue  is  not  an  isolated  problem,  but  part  of  a  problem 
that  confronts  the  entire  city.  We  strongly  urge  that  there  be 
no  delay  in  bringing  a  remedy  to  Fifth  Avenue,  as  otherwise  an 
irreparable  injury  may  be  done.  No  other  part  of  the  city  better 
exemplifies  the  harm  which  follows  uncontrolled  heights  and 
uses  of  buildings.  The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  addi- 
tional legislation  will  be  required  before  the  city  can  apply  the 
desired  remedy,  and  that  the  remedy  will  be  stronger  in  law  if 
applied  not  only  to  Fifth  Avenue  but  to  other  streets  similarly 
situated. 


CHAPTER  II— METHODS  OF  CONTROL 


The  general  problem  considered  by  the  Commission  com- 
prises the  regulation  of  building  heights  and  open  spaces  and  the 
location  of  industries  and  buildings.  Regulations  relative  to 
building  heights  and  open  spaces  may  be : 

(1)  Uniform  for  all  buildings  within  the  city,  without  dis- 

tinction as  to  class  or  location  of  building ; 

(2)  Uniform  for  all  buildings  of  the  same  class  throughout 

the  city; 

(3)  Uniform  for  all  buildings  or  for  all  buildings  of  the 

same  class  in  a  given  district  or  section  of  the  city. 

Uniform  regulations  for  all  buildings 

The  simplest  case  of  regulation  is  a  fixed  limit  of  height 
applying  to  all  buildings  within  a  city  without  distinction  as  to 
class  or  location  of  building.  This  is  the  usual  and  in  most  cases 
the  first  form  that  height  regulation  has  taken  in  American 
cities.  No  case  has  been  found  where  the  constitutionality  of 
such  an  ordinance  has  been  directly  before  the  courts,  but  in 
other  cases  the  courts  have  stated  that  the  right  to  make  reason- 
able regulations  of  this  kind  is  undoubted :  People  v.  D'Oench, 
in  N.  Y.  359,  Nov.  27,  1888;  Hudson  County  Water  Com- 
pany v.  McCarter,  209  U.  S.  349,  355 ;  Welch  v.  Swasey,  193 
Mass.  364,  79  N.  E.  745,  affirmed  214  U.  S.  91,  May  17,  1909; 
Cochran  v.  Preston,  70  Atl.  113,  114,  June  24,  1908. 

Regulations  varying  with  the  class  of  building 

Height  and  court  regulation  varying  somewhat  with  the 
class  of  building  is  a  usual  and  quite  generally  approved  method. 
One  of  the  most  usual  forms  of  classification  is  a  maximum 
height  limit  for  buildings  generally  and  a  lower  limit  for  tene- 
ment houses.  In  New  York  City  the  height  of  tenements  is  at 
present  limited  to  i]/2  times  the  width  of  the  widest  abutting 
street,  while  the  height  of  other  buildings  is  unlimited.  In  the 
second  class  cities  of  Massachusetts,  no  tenement  may  have  more 
than  one  legally  habitable  story  for  each  full  10  feet  of  street 


METHODS  OF  CONTROL  5 

width,  unless  it  be  set  back  from  the  street  a  distance  equal  to 
the  excess  of  its  height  over  that  permitted  at  the  street  line. 
The  height  of  other  buildings  is  limited  to  125  feet.  In  Chicago, 
the  height  of  tenements  is  limited  to  1^  times  the  street  width 
while  the  height  of  other  buildings  is  limited  to  200  feet.  In 
Boston,  the  height  of  all  buildings  is  limited  with  the  exception 
of  coal  hoists,  grain  elevators  and  sugar  refineries.  The  con- 
stitutionality of  the  Boston  regulation  has  been  upheld,  though 
this  question  of  exemption  of  particular  kinds  of  buildings  is  not 
referred  to  in  the  decision  (Welch  v.  Swasey,  193  Mass.  364; 
affirmed  214  U.  S.  91). 

A  special  act  of  the  Maryland  legislature  passed  in  1904 
limits  the  height  of  buildings  within  one  block  of  the  Washing- 
ton Monument  in  the  city  of  Baltimore  to  70  feet.  Churches  are 
exempted  from  the  provisions  of  this  act.  The  constitutionality 
of  this  exemption  was  upheld  by  the  Maryland  Court  of  Appeals 
(Cochran  v.  Preston,  70  Atl.  113).  This  was  on  the  ground  as 
stated  by  the  court  that  churches  "  do  not  present  the  same 
danger  from  fire  to  the  surrounding  buildings  as  many  other 
structures  do,  chiefly  because  they  are  not  likely  to  become  very 
numerous  in  any  one  locality." 

Though  a  number  of  American  cities  have  made  special  regu- 
lations for  tenement  houses  and  the  constitutionality  of  such 
statutes  has  been  affirmed,  the  opinions  rendered  have  not  con- 
sidered specifically  this  question  of  classification.  A  case  of 
interest,  however,  is  People  v.  D'Oench,  111  N.  Y.  359,  decided 
Nov.  27,  1888,  which  involved  the  construction  and  the  constitu- 
tionality of  a  New  York  statute  regulating  the  height  of  dwelling 
houses  in  New  York  City.  The  case  came  up  on  an  application 
for  a  writ  of  mandamus  requiring  the  superintendent  of  build- 
ings to  approve  the  specifications  and  plans  for  a  proposed  addi- 
tion to  the  Buckingham  Hotel.  The  applicant  claimed  that  the 
act  was  unconstitutional,  and  that  even  if  constitutional,  the  term 
"  dwelling  houses  "  should  not  be  construed  to  include  a  hotel. 
Judge  Earle  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  Court  states  that 
there  is  "  no  doubt  of  the  competency  of  the  legislature  in  the 
exercise  of  the  police  power  under  the  constitution  to  pass  such 


6 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


an  act,  and  the  sole  question,  therefore,  now  to  be  determined  is 
whether  the  act  applies  to  hotels."  The  Court  held  that  the  act 
did  not  apply  to  hotels  and  its  discussion  of  this  question  throws 
some  light  on  the  question  of  equality  and  classification  as  applied 
to  building  regulations.   Judge  Earle  says  (at  page  361)  : 

"  As  simple,  private  dwelling  houses  are  seldom,  if  ever,  built 
80  feet,  the  main  purpose  of  the  act  must  have  been  to  regulate 
the  height  of  tenement  and  apartment  houses,  which  are  becoming 
very  numerous  in  New  York,  which  are  usually  built  in  the 
midst  of  dwelling  houses  and  in  which  several  families  live  and 
carry  on  all  the  operations  of  housekeeping.  There  is  not  the  same 
reason  for  regulating  the  height  of  hotels  not  usually  built  in  the 
midst  of  dwelling  houses,  which  are  mainly  occupied  by  temporary 
adult  guests,  which  are  under  the  supervision  of  one  management 
and  which  can  never  become  numerous.  While  stores,  factories, 
warehouses,  buildings  for  offices  and  numerous  other  buildings  may 
be  erected  without  any  restriction  as  to  height,  we  can  see  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  the  language  used  in  this  act  was  meant  to  include 
hotels,  nearly  all  of  which  in  the  city  of  New  York  have  for  many 
years  been  erected  of  greater  height  than  the  limit  prescribed  in 
the  act." 

In  regulations  as  to  required  open  spaces  about  buildings  the 
tendency  to  apply  special  regulations  to  each  class  of  buildings  is 
even  more  pronounced  than  in  the  regulation  of  height.  Thus 
in  present  laws  in  force  in  New  York  City,  special  regulations  as 
to  open  spaces  are  applied  to  each  of  the  following  classes  of 
buildings :  hotels,  office  buildings,  theaters,  lodging  houses,  dwel- 
ling houses,  tenement  houses. 

An  objection  to  height  and  open  space  regulation  based  on 
class  of  building  is  that  it  may  result  in  a  partial  defeat  of  the 
chief  purpose  of  regulation,  which  is  to  better  light  and  air  con- 
ditions. A  tenement  house  has  special  restrictions  as  to  height 
and  as  to  courts  but  if  a  factory  may  be  built  adjoining  such 
tenement  without  restriction  as  to  height  or  courts  the  chief 
result  may  be  to  insure  improved  light  to  the  factory  at  the 
expense  of  the  tenement.  Regulations  as  to  height  and  open 
spaces  are  usually  based  on  the  supposition  that  they  will  be 
adequate  if  all  adjacent  buildings  conform  to  the  same  regula- 


METHODS  OF  CONTROL 


7 


tions.  They  assume  a  reciprocity  of  limitation  and  advantage. 
This  reciprocal  relation  may  be  destroyed  if  different  types  of 
buildings  in  the  same  district  are  subjected  to  different  regula- 
tions as  to  height  and  open  spaces.  While,  however,  a  general 
uniformity  is  desirable,  such  uniformity  need  not  be  absolute. 
Some  exemption  or  special  restriction  will  almost  always  be 
required  for  certain  classes  of  buildings  that  are  not  segregated 
but  are  scattered  throughout  the  city,  such  as  churches,  theaters, 
schools,  hotels,  etc.  Moreover,  considerations  of  safety  may 
require  an  absolute  height  limit  for  certain  buildings,  such  as 
factories  or  department  stores,  that  would  be  unreasonable  if 
applied  to  all  buildings. 

Regulations  varying  with  the  particular  district 

Every  large  city  that  has  made  a  serious  study  of  the  question 
of  regulating  heights  and  open  spaces  has  been  forced  to  the  con- 
clusion that  an  effective  solution  cannot  be  secured  without  a 
division  of  the  city  into  districts  and  the  application  of  special 
regulations  to  each  district  or  class  of  districts.  This  subject, 
together  with  that  of  the  location  of  industries  and  buildings,  is 
treated  at  length  in  Chapter  IV,  Districting. 

The  general  scope  of  constitutional  regulation 

It  is  clear  that  such  restrictions  as  are  enacted  must  justify 
themselves  as  a  reasonable  exercise  of  the  police  power  of  the 
state.  Under  eminent  domain  the  individual  is  compensated  for 
the  taking  of  his  property.  Under  the  police  power  there  is  also 
a  constructive  taking  of  property  in  certain  cases,  but  without 
compensation  to  the  individuals  injured.  It  is  theoretically  con- 
ceivable that  a  general  plan  of  building  restriction  and  regulation 
might  be  entered  upon  by  resort  to  the  power  of  eminent  domain, 
but,  practically,  such  a  solution  is  out  of  the  question.  The  ex- 
pense and  burden  of  condemnation  proceedings  and  litigation  in 
multitudinous  cases  would  create  a  tax  burden  that  would  in- 
crease rather  than  compensate  for  the  injury  to  property  inter- 
ests. Moreover,  the  kinds  of  regulation  under  consideration  are 
not  such  as  to  justify  individual  compensation.  While  they  re- 
strict individual  liberty  to  a  certain  extent  they  do  it  in  such  a 


8 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


way  as  to  conserve  individual  and  public  interests  and  rights. 
They  subject  the  use  of  urban  land  to  such  restrictions  as  are  ap- 
propriate and  reasonable  in  the  nature  and  history  of  this  class  of 
property. 

The  police  power  may  be  used  to  promote  the  public  health, 
safety,  order  and  general  welfare.  Protection  of  public  health, 
safety  and  order  constitute  the  police  power  in  the  primary  or 
narrower  sense  of  the  term.1 

It  is  a  power  so  vital  as  to  be  undoubted  when  reasonably  and 
justly  applied.  The  exercise  of  the  police  power  for  the  promo- 
tion of  public  comfort  and  convenience  and  for  the  promotion 
of  general  social  and  economic  interests  under  the  head  of  "  the 
general  welfare,"  while  upheld  by  competent  authority,  will 
nevertheless  be  subjected  to  more  careful  scrutiny  and  more  strict 
construction. 

The  position  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  regard 
to  the  scope  of  the  police  power  is  well  stated  by  Justice  Harlan 
in  C,  B.  &  Q.  Railway  v.  Drainage  Commissioners,  200  U.  S. 
561,  592,  decided  March  5,  1906: 

"  The  learned  counsel  for  the  railroad  company  seem  to  think 
that  the  adjudications  relating  to  the  police  power  of  the  state  to 
protect  the  public  health,  the  public  morals  and  the  public  safety 
are  not  applicable  in  principle  to  cases  when  the  police  power  is 
exerted  for  the  general  well-being  of  the  community  apart  from 
any  question  of  the  public  health,  the  public  morals  or  the  public 
safety.  .  .  .  We  cannot  assent  to  the  view  expressed  by 
counsel.  We  hold  that  the  police  power  of  a  state  embraces  regu- 
lations designed  to  promote  the  public  convenience  or  the  general 
prosperity,  as  well  as  regulations  designed  to  promote  the  public 
health,  the  public  morals  or  the  public  safety.  .  .  .  And  the 
validity  of  a  police  regulation  .  .  .  must  depend  upon  the 
circumstances  of  each  case  and  the  character  of  the  regulation, 
whether  arbitrary  or  reasonable  and  whether  really  designed 
to  accomplish  a  legitimate  public  purpose." 

Again  in  Welch  v.  Swasey,  214  U.  S.  91,  decided  May  17,  1909, 
the  same  court  through  Justice  Peckham  concurs,  at  page  106, 
in  the  conclusion  of  the  Massachusetts  Court  "  that  regulations 
1  Freund,  Police  Power,  sec.  10. 


METHODS  OF  CONTROL 


9 


in  regard  to  the  height  of  buildings,  and  in  regard  to  their  mode 
of  construction  in  cities,  made  by  legislative  enactments  for  the 
safety,  comfort  and  convenience  of  the  people  and  for  the  benefit 
of  property  owners  generally,  are  valid."  Finally  in  Eubank  v. 
City  of  Richmond,  33  Sup.  Ct.  76,  decided  December  2,  1912, 
Justice  McKenna  reiterates  that  the  police  power  extends  "  not 
only  to  regulations  which  promote  the  public  health,  morals  and 
safety,  but  to  those  which  promote  the  public  convenience  or  the 
general  prosperity." 

The  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  has  taken  substantially  the 
same  view  of  the  scope  of  the  police  power.  In  People  v.  King, 
no  N.  Y.  418,  Judge  Andrews  says  (at  page  423)  :  "  By  means 
of  this  power  the  legislature  exercises  a  supervision  over  mat- 
ters involving  the  common  weal  and  enforces  the  observance,  by 
each  individual  member  of  society,  of  the  duties  which  he  owes 
to  others  and  the  community  at  large.  It  may  be  exerted  when- 
ever necessary  to  secure  the  peace,  good  order,  health,  morals 
and  general  welfare  of  the  community.  ...  In  short,  the 
police  power  covers  a  wide  range  of  particular  unexpressed  pow- 
ers reserved  to  the  state  affecting  freedom  of  action,  personal 
conduct  and  the  use  and  control  of  property." 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  police  power  is  broad  and  comprehen- 
sive. Yet  it  is  by  no  means  unlimited.  A  controlling  limitation 
is  that  every  resort  to  it  should  commend  itself  to  the  sober  judg- 
ment as  necessary,  appropriate  and  reasonable,  the  infringement 
of  private  right  being  not  disproportionate  to  the  real  public  gain. 

Freund  in  his  treatise  on  the  Police  Power  well  states  that 
a  study  of  the  various  cases  in  which  the  police  power  has  been 
applied  "  will  reveal  the  police  power  not  as  a  fixed  quantity  but 
as  the  expression  of  social,  economic  and  political  conditions. 
As  long  as  these  conditions  vary,  the  police  power  must  continue 
to  be  elastic,  i.  e.,  capable  of  development."  If  an  informed  and 
deliberate  public  opinion  becomes  educated  to  the  necessity  for 
the  exercise  of  greater  control  over  the  planning  and  over  the 
building  of  the  city,  and  that  such  control  cannot  be  effectively 
exercised  except  through  the  police  power,  it  is  clear  that  the 
police  power  is  sufficiently  elastic  to  meet  the  situation.  The 


IO  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

courts,  while  naturally  conservative,  have  shown  a  strong  dispo- 
sition to  favor  all  reasonable  regulations  for  the  control  of  the 
height,  size  and  arrangement  of  buildings.  As  the  public  neces- 
sity for  such  regulations  becomes  more  clearly  apparent,  we  may 
expect  the  position  taken  by  the  courts  to  become  more  and  more 
clearly  defined  in  support  of  such  control. 

Bearing  in  mind  the  purposes  and  objects  which  justify  a 
resort  to  the  police  power  our  study  of  the  problem  of  controlling 
building  development  will  be  based  chiefly  on  the  following  con- 
siderations : 

(1)  Public  safety. — Protection  of  property  from  firt 
and  protection  of  the  occupants  of  buildings  from  injury 
due  to  fire  or  panic. 

(2)  Public  health. — Importance  of  light,  air  and  the 
prevention  of  congestion,  to  health  and  sanitation. 

(3)  General  welfare. —  (a)  The  comfort  and  con- 
venience of  the  occupants  of  dwellings,  offices  and  facto- 
ries, through  more  adequate  provision  for  light  and  air 
and  in  the  case  of  dwellings  through  the  maintenance  of 
the  essentially  residential  character  of  the  neighborhood. 

(b)  The  safeguarding  of  existing  and  future  build- 
ing investment  values  and  the  encouragement  of  an  appro- 
priate and  orderly  building  development  by  such  regula- 
tions as  will  prevent  the  taking  from  an  existing  structure 
of  its  minimum  allotment  of  light  and  air  and  as  will  tend 
to  maintain  the  character  of  a  district. 

(c)  The  prevention  of  street  congestion. 

Regulations  based  on  street  width 

Numerous  height  regulations  are  made  to  vary  in  some  meas- 
ure with  the  width  of  the  street.  In  European  cities  the  limitation 
based  on  street  width  is  in  most  cases  the  fundamental  restriction 
on  the  height  of  buildings.  In  America  this  restriction  at  present 
plays  a  much  less  important  part.  It  may  be  said  to  be  funda- 
mental in  the  general  height  restrictions  of  Washington  and  to 
be  of  great  practical  importance  in  those  of  Boston.  It  is  also  a 
very  important  factor  in  height  restrictions  for  tenement  houses. 


METHODS  OF  CONTROL 


II 


In  New  York  City  no  tenement  house  may  exceed  1J/2  times  the 
street  width. 

In  some  cases  the  height  allowed  is  exactly  proportional  to 
the  street  width.  In  other  cases  special  limits  are  provided  to 
govern  the  case  of  either  very  wide  or  very  narrow  streets.  In 
general,  limitations  based  on  street  width  may  be  classified  as 
follows : 

1.  The  street  width,  or  some  multiple  thereof. 

2.  The  street  width  increased  or  diminished  by  an  arbi- 

trary unit. 

3.  The  street  width  increased  by  the  amount  of  set-back. 

The  most  common  limitation  on  height  in  Germany  is  the 
street  width  either  taken  by  itself  or  increased  by  an  arbitrary 
unit.  Special  exemptions  are,  however,  frequently  made  in  the 
case  of  the  narrower  streets  in  the  inner  city — the  street,  no  mat- 
ter what  its  width,  being  assumed  as  of  a  given  width.  The 
multiple  of  the  street  width  is  rarely  found  in  Germany,  and  in 
no  case  is  it  applicable  to  an  entire  city.  Where  utilized,  the 
multiple  is  generally  much  smaller  than  that  in  American  cities. 
In  Breslau,  Dantzig  and  Oberhausen,  for  instance,  it  is  1 times 
the  width  of  the  street.  In  Bielefeld,  Liibeck  and  Stettin,  it  is 
iy2  times  the  width  of  the  street.  In  Boston  (except  as  else- 
where noted),  Charleston,  Cleveland,  Erie,  Fort  Wayne,  New 
Orleans  and  Youngstown,  on  the  other  hand,  the  multiple  is  2^2 
times  the  width  of  the  street.  With  Washington,  these  cities 
are  the  only  cities  in  America  that  base  the  general  height  limita- 
tion of  all  buildings  on  the  street  width.  Boston,  Cleveland  and 
New  Orleans  include  the  set-back  in  the  width  of  the  street. 
Washington  is  the  only  city  found  that  bases  the  height  upon 
the  width  of  the  street  diminished  by  an  arbitrary  amount.  As 
described  elsewhere,  the  height  of  buildings  on  residential  streets 
more  than  70  feet  in  width  may  not  exceed  the  width  of  the  street 
diminished  by  10  feet.  In  cities  of  the  second  class  in  New  York 
no  building  to  be  used  for  living  purposes,  except  a  hotel,  may 
exceed  in  height  the  street  width,  nor  in  any  case  may  it  exceed 
100  feet  in  height  (Laws  1913,  ch.  774). 


12 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


The  width  of  the  street  would  seem  to  have  a  certain  bearing 
on  most  of  the  purposes  for  which  height  limitations  are  pre- 
scribed. It  directly  affects  fire  prevention,  light  and  air  condi- 
tions, and  street  congestion.  It  seems  to  be  an  essential  factor 
in  any  thoroughgoing  treatment  of  the  problem  of  height  regu- 
lation. The  courts  have  sustained  height  limitations  based  in 
part  on  street  width  in  the  following  cases :  People  v.  D'Oench, 
in  N.  Y.  359,  Nov.  27,  1888;  Welch  v.  Swasey,  193  Mass. 
364,  affirmed  214  U.  S.  91,  May  17,  1909. 

Regulations  based  on  maintenance  of  a  minimum  angle  of  light 

A  limitation  based  directly  on  street  width  maintains  a  con- 
stant minimum  angle  of  light  for  the  front  of  the  building  at  the 
ground  floor.  If  prescribed  height  is  equal  to  street  width  this 
minimum  angle  of  light  is  45  degrees;  if  iy2  times  street  width, 
it  is  Z2>2A  degrees;  if  two  times  street  width,  it  is  26^2  degrees; 
if  2T/2  times  street  width,  it  is  21%  degrees.  The  converse  of 
this  is  that  the  maximum  angle  of  light  obstruction  will  be  the 
difference  between  the  above  amounts  and  90  degrees,  i.  e.,  45  de- 
grees for  height  limit  equal  to  street  width;  56^3  degrees  for 
height  limit  1^2  times  street  width;  63^  degrees  for  height  limit 
two  times  street  width;  683^  degrees  for  height  limit  2j4  times 
the  street  width. 

From  the  diagram  it  is  clear  that  a  flat  limit  of  height  is  not 
necessary  in  order  to  secure  a  minimum  angle  of  light.  If  thf 
height  limit  based  on  street  width  is  made  to  apply  only  to  the 
elevation  of  the  building  at  the  street  line  and  other  portions  of 
the  building  are  set  back  in  the  same  ratio  as  height  limit  to 
street  width  the  angle  of  light  is  maintained.  If  the  height 
limit  is  twice  the  width  of  the  street  a  set-back  after  reaching 
the  height  limit  at  the  street  line  of  5  feet  for  every  10  feet  of 
increase  in  height  will  maintain  the  angle  of  light  at  26J/2  degrees. 

Provisions  for  courts  in  tenement  house  and  general  building 
regulations  are  sometimes  based  in  part  at  least  on  the  mainte- 
nance of  a  minimum  angle  of  light.  This  basis  does  not  usually 
appear  on  the  face  of  the  law  but  has  nevertheless  been  used  in 
determining  the  prescribed  factors.    In  London,  the  angle  of 


METHODS  OF  CONTROL  13 

light  is  more  expressly  stated.  The  rear  heights  of  a  building 
are  in  general  regulated  by  a  line  drawn  at  an  angle  of  63/2 
degrees  to  the  horizontal  toward  the  building  from  the  rear  line 
of  the  lot.  That  is,  a  building  may  not  be  built  so  as  to  obstruct 
the  light  of  the  adjoining  lot  in  the  rear  at  an  angle  of  more  than 
6^/2  degrees. 

DIAGRAM  I 

Angles  of  Light  and  of  Light  Obstruction  at  Ground  Floor  on  Street  Front 


Exceptions  to  angle  of  light  rule 

While  light  is  important  it  is  not  the  only  object  that  height 
and  court  regulations  are  intended  to  secure.  Air  and  ventilation 
are  at  least  of  equal  importance.  It  is  of  course  true  that  if  a 
liberal  angle  of  light  is  provided  it  will  usually  carry  with  it 
adequate  provision  for  air  and  ventilation.  If,  however,  in  the 
case  of  a  court  the  angle  of  light  is  small  and  the  air  is  not 
renewed  and  kept  in  circulation,  the  question  of  ventilation  may 


14  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

require  separate  consideration.  This  constitutes  one  reason  for 
a  requirement  of  a  minmum  open  court  across  the  rear  of  the  lot. 
In  the  suburbs,  moreover,  where  lower  land  values  make  liberal 
provision  for  open  spaces  appropriate,  this  factor  may  well  be 
considered  apart  from  the  safeguarding  of  a  minimum  angle  of 
light. 

The  diminution  of  congestion  of  streets,  buildings  and  dis- 
tricts, is  also  an  important  purpose  to  be  served  by  height  and 
court  regulations.  Absence  of  congestion  in  residence  districts 
makes  for  more  wholesome  conditions  and  favors  the  physical 
and  civic  health  and  well-being  of  the  community.  This  purpose, 
like  that  of  air  and  ventilation,  usually  may  be  provided  for  by 
limitations  based  on  angle  of  light. 

Protection  against  fire  is  another  important  purpose  that  may 
be  served  by  height  and  court  regulations.  If  the  maintenance 
of  a  certain  angle  of  light  permits  the  construction  of  buildings 
higher  than  warranted  by  considerations  of  fire  prevention  and 
safety  to  occupants,  the  simple  rule  of  light  angle  should  be  sup- 
plemented to  provide  for  such  contingency. 

A  very  general  exception  to  the  angle  of  light  rule  is  found 
in  most  height  regulations  based  in  general  upon  street  width. 
The  rule  as  to  multiple  of  street  width  is  not  applied  to  very 
narrow  streets  in  the  business  center,  nor  is  it  applied  to  streets 
of  more  than  a  prescribed  width.  In  other  words,  as  an  excep- 
tion to  the  general  rule  there  is  a  minimum  height  that  will  be  per- 
mitted and  a  maximum  height  that  may  not  be  exceeded,  regard- 
less of  street  width.  It  is  clear  that  a  general  multiple  if  applied 
to  certain  narrow  streets  in  the  business  center  might  seriously 
depreciate  land  values  and  interfere  with  the  most  beneficial  use 
of  the  land.  Such  a  result  would  not  be  in  the  public  interest 
and  would  seem  to  render  the  regulation  unreasonable  and  of 
doubtful  constitutionality.  As  shown  more  fully  below  (pages 
24-26)  reasonableness  is  largely  a  matter  of  degree.  There  must 
be  some  fair  relation  between  the  public  good  to  be  secured  by  the 
regulations  and  the  private  injury  suffered.  Moderation  and  pro- 
portionateness  of  means  to  ends  is  of  the  essence  of  reasonable- 
ness. It  seems  that  classification  or  exemption  that  is  essential 
to  the  reasonableness  of  a  regulation  is  itself  reasonable. 


CHAPTER  III— HIGH  BUILDINGS 


The  high  building  problem  is  at  present  confined  chiefly  to  a 
comparatively  small  portion  of  the  lower  half  of  the  island  of 
Manhattan.  The  average  building  height  in  the  Borough  of 
Manhattan  is  4.8  stories.  Ninety  per  cent  of  the  buildings  do  not 
exceed  a  height  of  six  stories.  The  buildings  over  10  stories  in 
height  constitute  only  a  little  over  one  per  cent  of  the  total.  Out 
of  a  total  of  92,749  buildings,  there  are  but  1048  buildings  over 
10  stories  in  height;  90  buildings,  over  17  stories;  51  build- 
ings, over  20  stories ;  and  only  9  buildings  over  30  stories. 

The  average  building  height,  excluding  public  buildings  and 
churches,  on  Broadway,  below  Chambers  Street,  is  1 1  stories ;  on 
Nassau  Street,  from  Wall  to  Frankfort,  8.56  stories;  on  Trinity 
Place  and  Church  Street,  from  Morris  to  Chambers,  7.8  stories ; 
on  New  Street,  11.59  stories;  on  Exchange  Place,  14.1  stories; 
and  on  Fifth  Avenue  from  Washington  Square  to  59th  Street, 
6.4  stories. 

TABLE  I  HEIGHT  OF  BUILDINGS  IN  MANHATTAN1 


Height 

Number 

Height 

Number 

in 

of 

in 

of 

Stories. 

Buildings. 

Stories. 

Buildings. 

I. 

2. 
3- 
4- 
5- 

6. 

7> 
8. 

9- 

TO. 

II . 

12. 

13. 
14. 

IS- 
16. 


4,598 
3,708 
5,232 
22,526 
25,425 
21,576 
6,774 
1,259 
413 
193 
208 
150 
464 
47 
27 
30 
3i 


18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 
22. 

23. 
24. 
26. 
27. 
32. 
33. 
34- 
38. 
40. 
41. 

si. 
55. 


16 
13 
II 

18 

10 

3 
3 
6 
2 
1 
2 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 


Total  number  of  buildings   92,749 

1  From  the  building  census,  January  1,  1913,  prepared  by  Rudolph  P.  Miller, 
Commissioner  of  Buildings. 


l6  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

TABLE  II  HEIGHT  OF  BUILDINGS  BY  CLASSES  IN  MANHATTAN1 


CI 


1/3       e  zz 


PQ       .      bo  3 

u    Q    O  § 


rt  O 


CO 


ings, 

ings. 

Dwell 

Hotel 

Store; 
Dwell 

Total . . . 
Average. 


c 
D 

I?4 

113 

/ 

j 

8i 

4/1 

/04 

I 

8 

64 

411 

85 

324 

3 

6 

4 

38 

817 

100 

219 

0 

3 

29 

1,454 

208 

143 

[I 

3 

19 

1,980 

246 

106 

7 

7 

11 

1,118 

114 

45 

4 

3 

3 

383 

51 

9 

3 

6 

2 

178 

42 

2 

2 

47 

38 

I 

3 

86 

32 

2 

76 

28 

I 

232 

58 

6 

17 

I 

3 

14 

5 

12 

12 

16 

II 

3 

9 

2 

8 

3 

14 

8 

37    26  36 
5.5  2.7  7.8  2 


413 

238 

74 

24 

278 

254 

739 

6 

313 

241 

146 

i,73o 

16 

1,539 

264 

941 

15,468 

29 

4,795 

363 

130 

13,081 

62 

9,368 

401 

197 

8,869 

7i 

9,294 

198 

114 

1,556 

27 

3,491 

46 

54 

330 

30 

312 

31 

14 

87 

20 

16 

5 

12 

54 

21 

5 

1 

11 

33 

15 

16 

20 

13 

4 

2 

88 

53 

22 

1 

10 

7 

2 

6 

9 

3 

333 
9 


7,222 
59 


L338  2,253 
7-0  2.5 


2,257 
4.0 


1,267 
3-9 


4  385  s 


4.8 


5-3 


xFrom  the  building  census,  January  1,  1913,  prepared  by  Rudolph  P.  Miller, 
Commissioner  of  Buildings. 

The  height  of  buildings  in  the  district  below  Chambers 
Street  considered  as  a  whole,  is  considerably  lower  than  that 
on  the  above  mentioned  streets.  The  high  buildings  below 
Chambers  Street  are  practically  all  grouped  within  the  area 


HIGH  BUILDINGS  17 

bounded  on  the  east  by  Pearl  and  Whitehall  Streets  and  on  the 
west  by  State,  Greenwich,  and  West  Broadway.  The  average 
building  height  in  this  district,  the  area  of  which  is  a  little 
more  than  half  of  the  whole  territory  below  Chambers  Street, 
is  6.4  stories. 

A  classification  of  buildings  according  to  use  reveals  the  fact 
that  hotels,  and  not  office  buildings,  possess  the  greatest  average 
building  height.  Hotels  have  an  average  height  of  8.0  stories; 
department  stores,  7.8  stories;  office  buildings,  7.0  stories;  fac- 
tory building,  5.9  stories;  stores  and  dwellings,  5.3  stories; 
dwellings,  4.8  stories;  stores,  4.0  stories;  and  warehouses,  3.9 
stories.  But,  of  the  90  buildings  over  17  stories  high,  9  are 
factory  buildings,  10  are  hotels  and  71  are  office  buildings.  It  is 
clear  therefore  that  while  hotels  have  the  greatest  average  height, 
the  much  greater  proportion  of  high  office  buildings  and  their 
concentration  in  a  few  areas  make  the  determination  of  a  maxi- 
mum rule  applicable  to  all  buildings  very  largely  a  question  of 
determining  what  rule  will  be  most  appropriate  for  office  build- 
ings in  the  areas  of  maximum  congestion. 

Public  safety 

The  Building  Code  requires  that  all  buildings  over  150  feet 
in  height  be  thoroughly  fireproof.  The  buildings  themselves 
cannot  burn  because  there  is  nothing  combustible  in  their  con- 
struction. All  high  buildings  are  equipped  with  standpipes  and 
ample  tanks  at  various  levels  and  many  of  them  with  automatic 
sprinklers.  Doors  and  windows  between  rooms  and  between 
rooms  and  corridors  are  fireproof  so  that  fire  can  be  confined  to 
a  single  room.  There  are  many  interesting  examples  of  such 
fires. 

The  fact  remains,  however,  that  tall  buildings  are  not  neces- 
sarily safe.  The  rooms  are  often  filled  with  highly  inflammable 
material.  Unless  doors  are  closed,  fire  may  easily  spread  to 
other  rooms.  The  draft  up  the  chimney-like  elevator  wells  may 
pull  the  flames  across  the  corridor  and  the  flames,  fed  by  the 
grease  on  the  elevator  guides,  may  be  carried  to  upper  floors. 
Under  such  conditions  the  danger  of  panic  among  the  employees 


l8  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

of  the  building  would  be  very  real  and  the  higher  the  building 
the  greater  the  danger. 

The  lire  department  cannot  light  a  fire  from  the  outside  more 
than  85  to  100  feet  above  the  ground.  Above  that  they  must 
rely  on  the  standpipes  in  the  building.  If  the  standpipe  does 
not  work  or  if  the  fire  is  so  near  the  standpipe  as  to  render  its 
use  impracticable,  the  rire  department  becomes  helpless.  No 
fatal  fire  in  a  modern  high  building  has  yet  occurred,  but  it  is 
not  an  impossibility. 

In  case  of  general  panic  or  catastrophe  causing  the  occupants 
of  all  offices  in  all  buildings  in  the  high  building  district  to  seek 
the  streets  at  once,  a  serious  situation  would  present  itself.  It 
would  be  impossible  for  all  the  occupants  of  all  the  buildings 
abutting  on  certain  streets  to  move  in  the  street  at  one  time,  even 
though  the  street  were  cleared  of  all  other  traffic,  pedestrian, 
vehicular  and  surface  car  and  absolutely  free  from  all  obstruc- 
tions so  that  the  entire  width  of  the  street  might  be  used.  The 
minimum  space  required  by  a  crowd  moving  in  one  direction  is 
five  square  feet  per  person.  Computed  in  this  manner,  Broad- 
way could  hold  but  96.3  per  cent  of  its  occupants;  Trinity  Place 
and  Church  Street  86.6  per  cent;  Nassau  Street  69.3  per  cent; 
New  Street  44.5  per  cent;  and  Exchange  Place  only  37.5  per  cent. 
This  being  the  situation  to-day  the  question  arises  as  to  what 
might  happen  in  case  of  a  general  panic  should  the  entire  dis- 
trict be  solidly  built  up  with  buildings  of  the  present  extreme 
heights. 

Public  health 

In  areas  where  high  buildings  are  crowded  together  most  of 
the  rooms  even  on  the  street  front  are  inadequately  lighted  and 
many  are  decidedly  dark.  On  New  Street  and  Exchange  Place 
where  the  office  buildings  range  from  10  to  22  stories  high,  on 
a  bright  sunny  day  at  noon  in  midsummer  it  was  found  that  in 
almost  all  of  the  street  rooms  artificial  light  was  being  used 
next  to  the  windows.  The  conditions  in  the  interior  courts  in 
parts  of  the  tall  building  district  are  even  worse. 

Even  with  modern  artificial  lighting  of  the  most  approved 


HIGH  BUILDINGS 


19 


type,  the  dark  offices  have  caused  a  great  deal  of  eye  strain. 
Nothing  but  adequate  natural  light  seems  to  prevent  it.  Tuber- 
culosis experts  testified  to  the  Commission  that  they  had  found 
many  cases  of  tuberculosis  directly  traceable  to  working  in  dark 
offices.  A  noticeable  increase  in  sick  leave  has  been  found  among 
the  employees  of  firms  that  have  moved  from  light  to  dark 
offices. 

Public  comfort  and  convenience 

A  number  of  streets  in  the  high  building  district  are  already 
so  congested  that  pedestrian  and  vehicular  traffic  is  greatly  im- 
peded. Assuming  that  pedestrians  will  use  sidewalk  space  only 
and  will  move  in  one  direction  only,  there  is  room  on  Trinity 
Place  and  Church  Street  for  but  56  per  cent  of  the  occupants 
of  the  buildings  located  on  those  streets;1  on  Broadway,  50  per 
cent;  on  Nassau  Street,  32  per  cent;  and  on  New  Street,  but 
19  per  cent.  If  these  same  streets  should  be  uniformly  built  up 
to  an  average  height  of  30  stories,  the  above  percentages  would 
be  reduced  to :  26  per  cent  on  Broadway ;  20  per  cent  on  Trinity 
Place  and  Church  Street;  11.9  per  cent  on  Nassau  Street;  8.9 
per  cent  on  New  Street ;  and  8.4  per  cent  on  Exchange  Place.  It 
is  quite  clear  that  under  such  conditions  the  street  capacity  would 
be  entirely  inadequate  to  take  care  of  the  morning,  afternoon  and 
noon  hour  crowds. 

Property  values 

Few  skyscrapers  pay  large  net  returns.  Most  of  them  pay 
only  moderate  returns.  The  cost  per  cubic  foot  of  tall 
buildings  is  greater  than  that  for  low  buildings.  The  exact  differ- 
ence can  only  be  approximated  because  there  are  so  many  factors 
which  affect  the  problem.  However,  the  very  tall  buildings 
demand  many  things  out  of  proportion  to  their  increased  bulk. 
All  piping  has  to  be  made  disproportionately  heavier;  special 
pumps  and  relays  of  tanks  have  to  be  provided,  foundations  often 
call  for  special  construction,  wind-bracing  assumes  an  impor- 
tant place,  long-run  elevators  are  more  costly  than  short-run 

1  This  estimate  is  based  on  an  allowance  of  five  square  feet  per  moving 
person. 


20  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

elevators,  the  extra  space  taken  up  by  the  express  run  of  the 
elevators  is  an  additional  cost.  Thus  in  the  aggregate  the  total 
cost  per  cubic  foot  of  a  very  tall  building  may  be  60  to  75  cents 
per  cubic  foot  where  a  low  building  of  the  same  class  would  cost 
only  40  to  50  cents  per  cubic  foot. 

The  net  rentable  space  on  the  ground  floor  is  worth  on  the 
average  as  much  as  that  of  the  third  to  the  eighth  floors  inclu- 
sive. Loss  of  rentable  ground  floor  space  is  always  serious  and 
must  be  compensated  for  in  other  ways  if  the  building  is  going 
to  pay.  The  exceptional  size  of  the  columns  and  the  exceptional 
space  taken  by  pipes  and  ducts  on  the  lower  floors  alone,  have  a 
serious  effect  on  the  net  rentable  area.  However,  the  great  item 
of  waste  in  the  high  building  is  the  big  loss  of  valuable  renting 
space  on  the  lower  floors  due  to  the  dead  run  of  the  express  ele- 
vators to  the  upper  floors.  This  amounts  to  from  50  to  65  square 
feet  per  elevator  per  floor.  In  a  30  story  building  with  30  ele- 
vators this  means  on  the  ground  floor  1800  square  feet  given  up 
to  elevators  and  at  least  as  much  again  given  up  to  the  lobby,  so 
that  about  4000  square  feet  is  lost.  As  this  ground  floor  space  in 
such  buildings  often  rents  at  $20  per  square  foot,  the  loss  to  the 
building  is  $80,000  on  this  floor  alone.  A  10  story  building  would 
save  two-thirds  of  this.  The  loss  on  the  floors  above  due  to  the 
dead  run  of  elevators  also  amounts  to  a  surprising  total,  all  of 
which  would  be  saved  in  a  10  or  12  story  building.  This 
means  that  tall  buildings  reach  a  limit  beyond  which  the  loss  in 
space  on  the  lower  floors  more  than  counterbalances  the  profit  on 
the  upper  floors.  Every  building  according  to  its  shape,  size, 
location,  and  use  has  its  economic  limit. 

But  even  though  a  high  building  may  pay  a  moderate  net 
return  as  long  as  it  is  isolated  and  surrounded  by  low  buildings 
so  that  all  its  floors  and  offices  are  light  and  attractive,  the  result 
may  be  very  different  after  it  is  surrounded  by  similar  buildings, 
shutting  off  light  and  reducing  rentals  on  the  lower  floors.  As  a 
rule  in  an  area  in  which  high  buildings  predominate  the  rentals 
are  lowest  and  the  percentages  of  vacancies  greatest  on  the  lower 
floors  above  the  second.  If  before  the  high  building  development 
the  owners  in  such  districts  could  have  covenanted  among  them- 


HIGH  BUILDINGS 


21 


selves  to  limit  heights  and  enlarge  courts,  it  would  undoubtedly 
have  been  to  the  advantage  of  all  concerned. 

The  real  estate  interests  which  a  decade  ago  were  most  active 
in  opposing  the  adoption  of  a  height  limit  in  Boston  are  to-day 
among  its  staunchest  supporters.  The  consensus  of  opinion 
among  real  estate  men  in  Boston  is  that  the  height  limit,  instead 
of  depreciating  land  values  or  retarding  the  improvement  of 
property,  has  been  an  unqualified  success. 

Existing  Height  and  Area  Limitations  in  New  York 
Height  limits 

The  only  direct  limitation  on  the  height  of  buildings  in  New 
York  is  that  restricting  the  height  of  apartment  and  tenement 
houses  to  iy2  times  the  width  of  the  widest  abutting  street. 
There  are  of  course  other  provisions  in  the  building  code,  the 
city  charter,  the  labor  law,  and  the  tenement  house  law  that  con- 
stitute a  very  real  limitation  on  the  height  of  buildings,  but  all  of 
these  are  indirect  limitations.  The  most  important  of  these 
provisions  are  those  regarding  open  spaces  and  fireproofing. 

Open  spaces 

The  open  space  requirements  vary  considerably  with  the  type 
of  building.  No  open  space  is  required  in  the  case  of  factories, 
stores  and  warehouses.  Dwelling  houses,  hotels,  lodging  houses, 
office  buildings,  tenement  houses,  and  theaters  are,  however,  sub- 
ject to  special  provisions  of  varying  stringency. 

Dwelling  houses  may  cover  90  per  cent  of  the  lot  area. 

Hotels,  situated  on  corner  lots  and  covering  an  area  of  not 
more  than  3000  square  feet,  are  prohibited  from  occupying  more 
than  95  per  cent  of  the  lot  area  above  the  second  floor  level. 
Hotels,  situated  on  interior  lots,  are  prohibited  from  occupying 
more  than  90  per  cent  of  the  lot  area  above  the  second  story 
level.  An  additional  2^2  per  cent  of  uncovered  lot  area  must  be 
provided  for  each  and  every  story  over  five.  The  open  space 
provisions  with  reference  to  hotels  situated  on  inside  lots  are 
tantamount  to  a  maximum  height  limitation  of  41  stories.  In 


22 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


the  case  of  a  21  story  hotel  the  open  space  would  equal  half 
of  the  lot  area. 

Lodging  houses  may  cover  65  per  cent  of  interior  lots  and 
92  per  cent  of  corner  lots. 

Office  buildings  situated  on  interior  lots  may  cover  90  per 
cent  of  the  lot  area  at  and  above  the  second  floor  level.  Office 
buildings  situated  on  corner  lots  up  to  3000  square  feet  in 
area  may  cover  the  entire  lot  area. 

The  amount  of  open  space  demanded  in  the  case  of  apart- 
ment and  tenement  houses  is  dependent  upon  the  vertical  and 
horizontal  dimensions  of  the  building,  its  interior  arrangement 
and  occupancy,  the  shape  and  size  of  the  building  site,  and  its 
location.  Tenements  situated  on  corner  lots  up  to  3000  square 
feet  in  area  may  occupy  90  per  cent  of  the  lot  area.  Tenements 
situated  on  interior  lots  more  than  90  feet  but  less  than  105  feet 
in  depth  may  occupy  up  to  70  per  cent  of  the  lot  area.  Tenements 
situated  on  certain  other  kinds  of  lots  may  occupy  up  to  65  per 
cent  of  the  lot  area. 

Theaters  and  opera  houses  must  be  provided  with  rear  and 
side  courts.  The  width  of  these  courts  must  be  proportioned  to 
the  seating  capacity.1 

Height  Limitations  in  American  and  European  Cities 

The  maximum  height  limit  in  America  is,  as  a  rule,  set  so 
high  that  it  limits  the  height  of  buildings  only  when  what  might 
be  termed  the  logical  height  limit  for  that  particular  city  or 
locality  has  been  very  much  exceeded.  In  other  words,  the 
maximum  height  limit  is  no  height  limit  at  all  so  far  as  most 
buildings  are  concerned;  it  only  prevents  the  erection  of  a  few 
exceptionally  high  buildings.  It  does  not  limit  or  condition  the 
character  of  the  great  mass  of  buildings  erected  even  in  the  cen- 
tral business  district.  In  Boston,  Chicago,  and  Washington, 
however,  the  present  maximum  height  limits  do  constitute  a  very 
practical  restriction,  as  evidenced  by  the  tendency  in  certain  dis- 
tricts to  build  up  to  the  full  height  allowed  by  the  restrictions. 

1  For  a  fuller  treatment  of  the  entire  subject  of  existing  regulations,  see 
Appendix  II. 


Smaller  numeral  indicates  height  in  stories. 
Larger  numeral  indicates  height  in  feet. 


HIGH  BUILDINGS 


23 


The  following  is  a  tabulation  of  height  limits  in  certain  Amer- 
ican and  European  cities : 


American  Cities 


Baltimore    175  feet 

Boston1 

District  A    125  " 

District  B   80-100  " 

Buffalo2   

Charleston1    125 

Chicago    200 

Cleveland1    200  " 

Erie1    200  " 

Indianapolis    200 

Los  Angeles    150 

Manchester,  N.  H   125  " 

Milwaukee    225 

New  Orleans1    160  " 


Portland,  Ore   160  feet 

Rochester2   

Scranton    125  ** 

Youngstown1  

Fort  Wayne1    200  u 

Providence    120  ** 


Salt  Lake  City   125 

Toronto3    130  " 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Pennsylvania  Ave   160 

Business  Streets4    130  " 

Residence  Streets5    85  " 

Seattle   about  20  stories 


European  Cities 


Aix-la-Chapelle    65.6 

Altona    72.2 

Berlin    72.2 

Bremen    62.3 

Breslau    72.2 

Cologne    65.6 

Dortmund    65.6 

Dresden    72.2 

Duisburg    65.6 

Dusseldorf    65.6 

Edinburgh    60.0 

Elberfeld    65.6 

Frankfort    65.6 

Halle   59-0 

Hamburg    78.7 


feet     Hanover    65.6 

Kiel    72.2 

Leipzig    72.2 

London    80.0 

Liibeck    59.0 

Magdeburg    65.6 

Munich    72.2 

Paris    65.6 

Posen    65.6 

Rome    78.5 

Stockholm    72.2 

Stuttgart    65.6 

Vienna    82.0 

Zurich    43-0 


feet 


1  Not  to  exceed  2.y2  times  width  of  widest  street. 

2  Not  to  exceed  4  times  average  least  dimension. 

3  Not  to  exceed  5  times  least  dimension  at  base. 

4  Not  to  exceed  street  width  plus  20  feet. 

6  An  intermediate  height  between  60  feet  and  85  feet  on  streets  over  70  feet 
wide — height  not  to  exceed  width  of  street  minus  10  feet;  60  feet  on  streets 
from  60  to  70  feet  wide;  and  street  width  on  streets  less  than  60  feet  wide, 


CHAPTER  IV— DISTRICTING 


As  applied  to  building  restriction  there  are  two  general  types 
of  districting.  Certain  localities  may  be  set  off  as  residential 
or  business  or  industrial  districts.  Industry  and  business  may, 
for  example,  be  excluded  from  the  residence  districts.  The 
restrictions  may  go  further  and  attempt  to  secure  a  certain  type 
of  residence  district.  The  district  may  be  restricted  to  one 
family  or  two  family  houses.  Another  type  of  districting  is 
where  different  general  height  and  area  limitations  are  applied 
to  all  buildings  in  a  particular  district.  Any  thoroughgoing  plan 
for  the  control  of  building  development  must  make  use  of  both 
of  these  types  of  districting. 

Constitutionality  of  Districting 

While  the  desirability  of  districting  is  generally  recognized 
by  all  students  of  this  subject  there  is  a  fear  on  the  part  of  some 
that  it  may  be  held  void  as  an  infringement  of  the  constitutional 
guarantee  of  equality.  The  constitutional  guarantee  of  equal  pro- 
tection of  the  laws  constitutes  one  of  the  most  important  limita- 
tions upon  the  police  power.  It  means  that  the  government  shall 
not  impose  particular  burdens  upon  individuals  or  corporations 
to  meet  dangers  for  which  they  cannot  in  justice  be  held  responsi- 
ble, and  that  all  legislative  discriminations  or  classifications  shall 
be  justified  by  differences  of  status,  act  or  occupation  correspond- 
ing to  the  difference  of  legislative  measures.1  The  idea  of 
equality  excludes  in  principle  both  particular  burdens  and  special 
privileges,  but  admits  of  reasonable  classification.2 

The  question  what  constitutes  reasonable  classification  comes 
up  chiefly  in  connection  with  districting.  To  what  length  is  it 
permissible  to  go  in  the  division  of  the  city  into  districts  with 
varying  regulations  as  to  the  height,  size  and  arrangement  of 
buildings?  Other  forms  of  classification  have  received  quite 
general  acceptance.    Thus  tenement  houses  have  often  been  put 

1  Freund,  Police  Power,  page  v. 
'Freund,  Police  Power,  sec.  611. 


Base  map  reproduced  by  courtesy  of  Ohman  Map  Company. 


MAP   IV— UNIMPROVED   PROPERTY    IN   THE  BRONX. 
Black  indicates   unimproved  land. 


DISTRICTING  25 

in  a  separate  class  and  subjected  to  more  stringent  regulations. 
This  has  been  justified  on  the  ground  of  greater  importance  in 
relation  to  public  health  or  safety.  Likewise  height  regulations 
have  been  adopted  varying  according  to  the  width  of  the  street. 
This  is  in  effect  a  districting  plan.  The  district  changes  with 
each  variation  in  street  width.  This  sort  of  districting  is  usual 
and  approved.  It  may  be  justified  directly  on  the  ground  of 
health  and  safety.  A  general  plan  of  districting  such  as  seems 
needful  cannot  be  justified  solely  on  such  grounds.  YVe  cannot 
justify  more  stringent  regulations  for  dwellings  in  the  suburbs 
than  in  lower  Manhattan  on  the  ground  that  light,  air  and  com- 
fort for  the  residents  of  the  suburbs  are  of  greater  public  impor- 
tance than  for  the  residents  of  lower  Manhattan.  It  seems, 
however,  that  such  districting  can  be  justified  if  it  can  be  shown 
to  be  essential  to  the  general  welfare.  If  regulations  admittedly 
appropriate  and  reasonable  for  suburban  areas  are  admittedly 
inappropriate  and  unreasonable  for  congested  areas,  the  public 
importance  and  necessity*  for  districting  are  clearly  shown. 

Classification  or  districting  for  the  purposes  of  regulation 
must  either  be  based  directly  on  the  purposes  for  which  the  police 
power  may  be  exercised  or  it  must  be  justified  by  difference  in 
injun*  to  vested  interests.  In  order  to  justify  more  stringent 
regulations  for  dwelling-houses  in  the  suburbs  than  for  dwelling- 
houses  in  lower  Manhattan  it  must  appear  either  that  such  regu- 
lations for  the  suburbs  are  more  important  to  the  public  health, 
safety  or  general  welfare  than  for  lower  Manhattan,  or  that 
while  equally  important  for  one  or  more  of  these  purposes  in 
both  districts  the  suburban  regulations  would  if  applied  to  lower 
Manhattan  interfere  so  seriously  with  existing  property  values  as 
to  render  them  of  doubtful  expediency  or  constitutionality.  The 
courts  will  insist  that  there  be  some  fair  relation  between  the 
public  good  to  be  secured  by  the  regulation  and  the  private  injury 
suffered.  Building  regulations  must  be  reasonable  in  order  to  be 
constitutional.  There  is  no  absolute  standard  for  all  conditions. 
There  must  be  a  reasonable  relation  between  the  public  object 
to  be  gained  and  the  loss  of  property  and  liberty  suffered.  It  is 
clear  that  any  deprivation  of  individual  liberty  is  a  real  public 


26 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


loss  that  must  be  justified  by  some  greater  public  gain.  It  is  also 
clear  that  extended  injury  to  property  interests  may  cause  wide- 
spread public  loss  and  consequently  should  have  for  its  justifica- 
tion as  an  exercise  of  the  police  power  some  greater  public  gain. 
In  order  to  be  reasonable  there  must  be  a  proportionateness  of 
means  to  ends.  This  point  is  dwelt  upon  at  length  by  Freund  in 
his  treatise  on  the  Police  Power.   He  says  (sec.  63)  : 

"  Leading  courts  have  stated  very  distinctly  that  reasonableness 
is  one  of  the  inherent  limitations  of  the  police  power;  so  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  Mass.1:  'Difference  of  degree  is  one  of  the  dis- 
tinctions by  which  the  right  of  the  legislature  to  exercise  the  police 
power  must  be  determined.  Some  small  limitations  of  previously 
existing  rights  incident  to  property  may  be  imposed  for  the  sake 
of  preventing  a  manifest  evil.  Larger  ones  could  not  be  without 
the  exercise  of  the  right  of  eminent  domain.'  And  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  U.  S.2 :  'A  Statute  or  a  regulation  provided  for 
therein,  is  frequently  valid  or  the  reverse,  according  as  the  fact 
may  be,  whether  it  is  a  reasonable  or  an  unreasonable  exercise  of 
legislative  power  over  the  subject  matter  involved,  and  in  many 
cases  questions  of  degree  are  the  controlling  ones  by  which  to  de- 
termine the  validity,  or  the  reverse,  of  legislative  action/  and  in 
Plessy  v.  Ferguson,3  in  answer  to  the  contention  that  the  principle 
of  separation  might  be  carried  to  the  length  of  assigning  to  black 
and  white  different  quarters  of  the  city  for  living  or  different  sides 
of  the  street  for  walking,  the  Supreme  Court  said :  '  The  reply  to 
all  this  is,  that  every  exercise  of  the  police  power  must  be  reason- 
able.' .  .  .  There  are  few  forms  of  control  that  cannot  be- 
come unreasonable  by  an  excess  of  degree:  and  there  are  many 
cases  where  no  other  principle  of  limitation  is  discoverable  than 
that  of  reasonableness." 

The  districting  of  a  city  for  building  restriction  purposes  is 
made  necessary  by  the  fundamental  characteristic  of  "reason- 
ableness" which  is  the  essential  feature  of  a  valid  exercise  of  the 
police  power.  Especially  in  a  great  city  like  New  York  it  be- 
comes necessary  that  building  regulations  should  vary  according 
to  the  character  of  the  district  and  according  to  the  type  and 
'Rldeout  V.  Knox,  148  Mass.  368. 

'Wisconsin  M.  and  P.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Jacobson,  179  U.  S.  287  (1006). 
'  163  U.  S.  537- 


Base  map  reproduced  by  courtesy  of  Ohnian  Map  Company. 


MAP  V — UNIMPROVED  PROPERTY  IN  BROOKLYN. 
Black  indicates  unimproved  land. 


DISTRICTING 


27 


use  of  the  building.  In  certain  districts  suburban  conditions  of 
light  and  air  can  be  maintained  with  great  public  advantage  and 
with  slight  private  loss ;  in  other  districts  such  favorable  condi- 
tions of  light  and  air  while  theoretically  just  as  desirable  are  en- 
tirely impracticable  and  any  law  that  attempted  to  enforce  them 
would  be  clearly  unreasonable  and  void. 

A  classification  based  on  proportionateness  of  means  to  ends 
is  recognized  in  practically  all  building  regulations.  General 
maximum  height  regulations,  for  example,  apply  only  to  build- 
ings hereafter  constructed.  In  doing  so  they  discriminate  in 
favor  of  the  owners  of  buildings  already  constructed.  A  lopping 
off  of  existing  buildings  in  excess  of  the  prescribed  height  is  of 
no  less  importance  to  the  health,  safety  and  convenience  of  the 
public  than  the  restriction  of  the  height  of  an  equal  number  of 
buildings  hereafter  to  be  erected.  A  discrimination  in  favor  of 
buildings  already  constructed  cannot  be  justified  directly  on  the 
grounds  for  which  the  police  power  may  be  exercised.  Such 
discrimination  or  classification  finds  abundant  justification,  how- 
ever, when  we  apply  the  controlling  principle  of  reasonableness 
and  proportionateness  of  means  to  ends.  The  reconstruction  of 
existing  buildings  would  impose  burdens  on  private  owners  dis- 
proportionate to  the  public  gain.  Such  regulations  would  there- 
fore be  unreasonable  and  void.  It  seems  that  classification  or 
exemption  essential  to  the  reasonableness  of  a  regulation  is  itself 
reasonable.  This  principle  constitutes  an  adequate  justification 
for  districting. 

While  a  specific  regulation  taken  by  itself  may  not  seem  to 
have  a  very  direct  relation  to  the  purposes  for  which  the  police 
power  may  be  invoked,  yet  when  taken  as  a  part  of  a  compre- 
hensive plan  for  the  control  of  building  development  throughout 
the  entire  city,  its  relation  to  such  purposes  may  be  unmistakable. 
Grant  that  a  comprehensive  system  of  districting  is  essential  to 
the  health  and  general  welfare  of  the  city,  and  it  follows  that 
every  specific  regulation  that  is  an  essential  part  of  such  compre- 
hensive system  is  justified  under  the  police  power. 


28 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Necessity  for  Districting 

In  this  country  comparatively  little  use  has  been  made  of 
districting.  It  has  been  carried  out  most  fully  in  certain  Euro- 
pean cities.  It  is  coming  to  be  recognized  as  essential  to  well 
ordered,  purposeful,  economic  and  socially  beneficial  city  growth. 
Haphazard  methods  of  city  construction  result  in  a  minimum  of 
convenience  with  a  maximum  of  cost  to  the  public,  and,  in  gen- 
eral, to  the  individual  as  well. 

The  welfare  of  the  people  of  a  city  is  very  largely  de- 
pendent on  the  skill  and  foresight  with  which  the  city  has  been 
built.  Upon  this  depends  their  opportunity  for  agreeable  and 
remunerative  occupation,  for  the  enjoyment  of  leisure  and  the 
creation  of  a  home.  If  factories  and  offices  are  dark  and  poorly 
ventilated,  the  worker  suffers  in  health  and  comfort.  If  dwell- 
ings are  huddled  together  without  adequate  provision  for  open 
spaces  and  if  dwellings,  stores  and  factories  are  thrown  together 
indiscriminately,  the  health  and  comfort  of  home  life  are  de- 
stroyed. 

It  will  pay  a  city  to  attempt  by  every  available  means  to  con- 
serve the  health  and  general  well-being  of  its  inhabitants.  This 
means  increased  productivity  and  increased  productivity  means 
higher  wages  for  the  laborer,  higher  profits  for  the  employer  and 
higher  rents  for  the  real  estate  owner. 

The  need  for  the  creation  of  special  restrictions  for  special 
districts  is  most  clearly  exemplified  in  the  case  of  suburban 
residence  districts.  Here  real  estate  developers  have  often  found 
it  profitable  to  secure  control  of  large  areas  in  order  by  restrictive 
covenants  to  insure  to  intending  purchasers  of  homes  the  crea- 
tion and  maintenance  of  a  residence  section  of  a  certain  desired 
type.  The  surroundings  and  neighborhood  are  all  important  in 
securing  desirable  home  conditions.  Unless  the  general  character 
of  the  section  is  fixed  for  a  considerable  period  of  years  no  one 
can  afford  to  build  a  home.  If  he  does  build,  a  change  in  the  sup- 
posed character  of  the  neighborhood  through  the  building  of 
apartments,  stores  or  factories  may  render  the  location  unde- 
sirable for  a  home  of  the  character  he  has  built  and  thus  greatly 
depreciate  his  investment. 


Base  map  reproduced  by  courtesy  of  Ohman  Map  Company. 

MAP  VI— HEIGHTS  OF  RESIDENCE  BUILDINGS  IN  THE  BRONX. 


Numerals  denote  height  in  stories. 
Dark  shading  denotes  apartments. 


DISTRICTING  29 

Another  general  social  factor  that  demands  the  zoning  or 
districting  of  the  city  for  building  purposes  under  the  police 
power  is  the  recognized  evil  of  congestion  of  population  as  ex- 
emplified on  the  lower  East  Side.  All  students  of  the  subject 
recognize  that  such  congestion  of  population  is  a  real  detriment 
to  the  health  and  civic  fitness  of  the  population  of  the  district 
and  a  real  menace  to  the  welfare  of  the  entire  city.  The  prob- 
lem is  to  prevent  the  repetition  of  these  conditions  in  other  parts 
of  the  city.  Restrictions  that  would  be  upheld  as  reasonable  for 
the  present  congested  area  would  be  clearly  inadequate  to  pre- 
vent the  repetition  in  other  districts  of  conditions  almost  as  bad 
as  those  now  existing  on  the  lower  East  Side.  The  only  method 
by  which  this  can  be  accomplished  is  by  permitting  the  creation 
under  the  police  power  of  different  restrictions  for  different  sec- 
tions. Surely  the  prevention  of  undue  congestion  of  population 
is  a  matter  of  such  vital  importance  to  the  general  welfare  that 
it  will  justify  any  reasonable  classification  of  buildings  according 
to  type  and  district;  especially  if  the  injury  to  vested  interests  re- 
sulting from  such  classification  is  comparatively  small. 

Manhattan  with  its  skyscrapers  is  comparatively  undeveloped. 
It  is  a  fact  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  area  of  lower  Manhat- 
tan is  now  so  poorly  developed  that  the  existing  improvements 
are  reckoned  of  no  value  for  purposes  of  purchase  or  sale.  The 
bare  value  of  the  land  is  all  that  is  considered.  This  means  that 
a  large  portion  of  the  land  of  Manhattan  is  very  inadequately 
utilized.  Where  space  is  so  scarce  this  inadequate  utilization  is 
a  great  social  and  economic  loss.  This  partial  development  and 
poor  utilization  of  the  land  is  even  more  apparent  in  all  the 
other  boroughs.  A  considerable  percentage  of  the  land  even 
in  what  are  considered  built  up  districts,  is  either  vacant  or  very 
inadequately  utilized.  In  the  suburbs  the  sprawling  character  of 
building  development  is  everywhere  apparent.  The  natural  re- 
sult of  a  poor  utilization  of  its  land  area  by  a  city  is  high  rents 
for  occupiers  and  low  profits  for  investors.  It  may  seem  para- 
doxical to  hold  that  a  policy  of  building  restriction  tends  to  a 
fuller  utilization  of  land  than  a  policy  of  no  restriction,  but  such 
is  undoubtedly  the  case.   The  reason  lies  in  the  greater  safety  and 


30  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

security  to  investment  secured  by  definite  restrictions.  The 
restrictions  tend  to  fix  the  character  of  the  neighborhood.  The 
owner  therefore  feels  that  if  he  is  to  secure  the  maximum  re- 
turns from  his  land,  he  must  promptly  improve  it  in  conformity 
with  the  established  restrictions.  For  example,  he  will  not  be 
deterred  from  immediate  improvement  by  the  consideration  that 
while  a  detached  house  is  at  present  an  appropriate  improve- 
ment it  is  probable  that  in  10  years  an  apartment  house  would 
be  appropriate  and  that  by  waiting  he  will  not  only  be  able  to 
reap  the  advantage  of  greatly  increased  land  values  but  will  save 
great  depreciation  in  the  value  of  the  detached  house  due  to  the 
fact  that  it  has  become  an  inappropriate  improvement  for  the 
lot. 

The  same  principle  applies  in  the  case  of  most  types  of  build- 
ings. As  a  general  rule,  a  building  is  appropriately  located  when 
it  is  in  a  section  surrounded  by  buildings  of  similar  type  and  use, 
all  of  which  have  been  constructed  with  reference  to  that  par- 
ticular use.  Anything  that  will  tend  to  preserve  the  character  of 
a  particular  section  for  a  reasonable  period  of  years,  will  tend 
to  bring  about  the  uniform  improvement  of  the  section.  A  large 
proportion  of  the  land  of  New  York  City  that  is  now  unim- 
proved or  poorly  improved  is  in  that  condition  because  the  owners 
feel  that  the  character  of  the  section  is  changing,  is  bound  to 
change  in  the  near  future  or  that  the  permanent  character  of  the 
section  is  unknown.  If  restrictions  were  imposed  so  that  the  gen- 
eral character  of  particular  sections  could  be  forecasted  with 
reasonable  certainty  for  a  period  of  years,  owners  who  had  been 
holding  back  on  account  of  the  uncertainties  of  the  situation 
would  find  it  clearly  to  their  advantage  to  improve  their  holdings. 
The  result  would  be  that  these  restricted  sections  would  be  more 
quickly  built  up  with  buildings  of  similar  type  and  use.  This 
should  have  the  effect  of  improving  living  conditions,  reducing 
the  cost  of  living  and  maintaining  real  estate  values. 

Any  growing  city  that  fails  to  control  building  development 
must  inevitably  suffer  enormous  loss  due  to  building  obsolescence. 
Obsolescence  may  be  defined  as  lack  of  adaptation  to  function. 
It  results  from  changed  condition-  and  surroundings  that  render 


MAP  VII — HEIGHTS   OF   RESIDENCE   BUILDINGS   IN  BROOKLYN. 
Numerals  denote  height  in  stories. 


DISTRICTING 


31 


the  building  an  inappropriate  improvement  for  the  particular  loca- 
tion. The  total  social  loss  does  not  consist  merely  of  the  great 
cost  of  building  reconstruction  or  of  the  great  decline  in  the 
rental  value  of  the  inappropriate  buildings  that  are  not  recon- 
structed, but  there  is  added  to  this  the  social  loss  due  to  the 
retardation  of  real  estate  improvements  owing  directly  to  the 
obsolescence  hazard. 

In  a  memorandum  submitted  to  the  Commission  by  Frederick 
L.  Ackerman  the  importance  of  districting  and  its  superiority 
over  private  restrictive  covenants  is  clearly  pointed  out.  Mr. 
Ackerman  says: 

"  We  should  not  confuse  the  term  '  zoning '  with  the  ideas  sur- 
rounding the  present  use  of  the  word  '  restriction.'  It  is  true  that 
restrictions  upon  property  are  a  necessary  part  of  any  scheme  of 
zoning,  but  there  is  a  fundamental  difference  in  the  nature  of  the 
restrictions.  When  a  group  of  individuals  restrict  a  section  of  the 
city,  it  is  done  for  the  purpose  of  conserving  that  section  for  a 
particular  use.  In  practice,  this  object  is  rarely  attained  for  the 
simple  reason  that  there  are  parcels  of  property  within  that  section 
which,  for  one  reason  or  another,  are  withheld  with  the  result  that 
sooner  or  later  these  pieces  are  used  for  a  purpose  detrimental  to  the 
adjacent  property,  causing  the  restricted  property  to  depreciate  in 
value.  Ofttimes  the  restrictions  made  by  individual  owners  hamper 
seriously  the  growth  of  a  section,  and  in  practice,  instead  of  con- 
serving the  section  to  a  better  development  of  the  particular  activity 
for  which  it  was  intended,  these  restrictions  simply  serve  as  a 
check  upon  its  development  owing  to  the  fact  that  owners  know 
that  sooner  or  later  the  restrictions  will  be  removed,  when  other 
activities  will  enter  and  disintegrate  the  values.  When  the  city 
places  restrictions  over  a  section,  these  apply  to  all  properties,  with 
the  result  that  there  immediately  begins  a  more  permanent  develop- 
ment along  the  lines  for  which  the  section  is  to  be  used,  and  prop- 
erties increase  in  value. 

"  We  have  given  too  much  weight  to  the  ideas  surrounding  geo- 
graphical location  and  have  not  considered  seriously  the  idea  that 
the  value  of  property  depends  upon  the  degree  to  which  a  certain 
section  is  developed  for  a  certain  use.  Values  appreciate  in  sec- 
tions where  it  is  known  that  the  development  is  to  be  maintained 
along  definite  and  well  established  lines.    For  instance,  the  values 


32  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

in  office  building  sections  are  dependent  upon  the  degree  of  the  de- 
velopment of  that  section  for  that  particular  use.  This  idea  holds 
in  loft,  factory,  and  residential  sections,  shopping  districts,  and  the 
like,  and  experience  has  taught  us  that  as  soon  as  new  elements  are 
introduced  into  these  sections  of  a  nature  tending  to  lower  the 
standard  of  the  section,  the  values  of  the  properties  are  correspond- 
ingly reduced.  There  is  no  economy  in  the  present  method  of  con- 
tinually shifting  geographically  the  various  interests  of  the  city.  We 
should  rather  foster  the  idea  of  developing  various  sections  for  a 
particular  use  and  place  a  premium  upon  the  erection  of  permanent, 
well  designed  structures  within  that  section,  to  be  used  for  that 
particular  purpose  for  which  the  section  is  restricted." 

Height  Districts  in  American  Cities 

The  chief  American  examples  of  districting  as  applied  to  the 
height  of  buildings  are  furnished  by  Boston,  Baltimore,  Indian- 
apolis and  Washington. 

Boston 

In  Boston  the  entire  city  has  been  divided  into  two  districts — 
District  A  and  District  B.  In  District  A,  the  business  section  of 
the  city,  buildings  may  not  exceed  125  feet  in  height.  In  District 
B,  the  residential  area  of  the  city,  buildings  may  not  exceed  80 
feet  in  height  except  on  thoroughfares  over  64  feet  in  width.  On 
such  streets,  buildings  may  be  erected  to  a  height  equal  to 
134  times  the  width  of  the  street,  but  no  building  in  District 
B  may  be  erected  to  a  greater  height  than  80  feet  unless  its 
width  on  each  and  every  abutting  public  street  is  at  least  one- 
half  of  its  height.  No  building,  however,  in  either  District  A  or 
District  B  may  be  of  greater  height  than  2.]/2  times  the  width 
of  the  widest  abutting  street.  This  districting  has  been  done 
under  authority  of  a  special  act  of  the  legislature  through  the 
agency  of  a  commission  appointed  for  the  purpose.  The  regu- 
lations, which  are  considered  in  detail  in  Appendix  IV,  have 
been  upheld  by  the  highest  court,  both  of  the  State  and  of  the 
United  States. 

In  regard  to  the  constitutionality  of  districting,  the  Massa- 


DISTRICTING  33 

chusetts  court1  points  out  that  any  police  regulation  must  be 
reasonable  "not  only  in  reference  to  the  interests  of  the  public, 
but  also  in  reference  to  the  rights  of  landowners."  If  these  rights 
and  interests  are  in  conflict  "the  opposing  considerations  should 
be  balanced  against  each  other  and  each  should  be  made  to  yield 
reasonably  to  those  upon  the  other  side."  The  court  indicates 
that  this  consideration  makes  it  necessary  in  considering  the 
height  limitation  to  have  reference  "to  the  use  for  which  the 
real  estate  probably  will  be  needed."  The  court  calls  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  value  of  land  and  demand  for  space  in  the 
business  district  is  such  as  to  call  for  buildings  of  greater  height 
than  in  the  residential  district. 

The  case  was  carried  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  and  the  constitutionality  of  the  act  again  affirmed.  (Welch 
v.  Swasey,  214  U.  S.  91,  29  Sup.  Ct.  567,  decided  May  17, 
1909.)  It  was  contended  by  the  appellant  that  the  real  purpose 
of  the  act  was  to  preserve  architectural  symmetry  and  regular  sky 
line,  and  that  the  police  power  could  not  be  exercised  for  such 
a  purpose.  It  was  further  contended  that  the  infringement  upon 
property  rights  was  unreasonable  and  disproportional  to  any 
public  necessity  and  that  the  distinction  between  125  feet  for  the 
height  of  buildings  in  District  A  and  80  feet  to  100  feet  for  build- 
ings in  District  B  was  wholly  unjustifiable  and  arbitrary,  having 
no  reference  to  public  safety  or  to  any  purpose  appropriate  to 
the  police  power.  The  Supreme  Court  rejected  these  conten- 
tions, stating  that  the  reasons  contained  in  the  opinion  of  the 
state  court  were,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court,  sufficient 
to  justify  the  validity  of  the  regulations  in  question.  Justice 
Peckham,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  refers  to  the 
justification  of  the  districting  provision  based  on  the  greater 
value  of  land  in  District  A,  presented  by  the  state  court.  He 
also  finds  an  additional  reason  for  the  districting  provision  in  a 
greater  danger  in  case  of  fire  from  tall  buildings  in  a  residential 
district.   He  says  (at  page  106-108)  : 

"  In  this  case  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court  of  the  State  holds 
the  legislation  valid,  and  that  there  is  a  fair  reason  for  the  discrimi- 

1  Welch  v.  Swasey,  193  Mass.  364,  79  N.  E.  745,  January  1,  1907. 


34  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

nation  between  the  height  of  buildings  in  the  residential  as  com- 
pared with  the  commercial  districts.  That  court  had  also  held  that 
regulations  in  regard  to  the  height  of  buildings,  and  in  regard  to 
their  mode  of  construction  in  cities,  made  by  legislative  enactments 
for  the  safety,  comfort  or  convenience  of  the  people  and  for  the 
benefit  of  property  owners  generally  are  valid.  Attorney  General 
v.  Williams,  174  Mass.,  476.  We  concur  in  that  view,  assuming,  of 
course,  that  the  height  and  conditions  provided  for  can  be  plainly 
seen  to  be  not  unreasonable  or  inappropriate. 

"  In  relation  to  the  discrimination  or  classification  made 
between  the  commercial  and  the  residential  portion  of  the  city,  the 
state  court  holds  in  this  case  that  there  is  reasonable  ground  there- 
for in  the  very  great  value  of  the  land  and  the  demand  for  space 
in  those  parts  of  Boston  where  a  greater  number  of  buildings  are 
used  for  the  purpose  of  business  or  commercially  than  where  the 
buildings  are  situated  in  the  residential  portion  of  the  city,  and 
where  no  such  reasons  exist  for  high  buildings.    .    .  . 

"  We  are  not  prepared  to  hold  that  this  limitation  of  eighty  to 
one  hundred  feet,  while  in  fact  a  discrimination  or  classification,  is 
so  unreasonable  that  it  deprives  the  owner  of  property  of  its 
profitable  use  without  justification,  and  that  he  is  therefore  entitled 
under  the  Constitution  to  compensation  for  such  invasion  of  his 
rights.  The  discrimination  thus  made  is,  we  think,  reasonable,  and 
is  justified  by  the  police  power.  .  .  .  The  reasons  contained 
in  the  opinion  of  the  state  court  are  in  our  view  sufficient  to  justify 
this  enactment." 

Baltimore 

A  special  act  of  the  Maryland  legislature  passed  in  1904 
limited  the  height  of  buildings  within  one  block  of  the  Washing- 
ton Monument  in  the  city  of  Baltimore  to  70  feet.  At  that  time 
the  general  maximum  height  limit  for  the  entire  city  was  175 
feet.  The  districting  act  was  held  to  be  constitutional  by  the 
Court  of  Appeals  of  Maryland  in  a  decision  of  June  24,  1908 
(Cochran  V.  Preston,  70  AtiL  113).  The  appellant  in  this  case 
claimed  that  the  regulation  was  an  infringement  of  the  consti- 
tutional guarantee  of  equal  protection  of  the  laws  and  due  process 
of  law.  The  statute  applied  a  special  rule  to  a  certain  small  dis- 
trict, and  as  to  that  district,  provided  an  exemption  in  the  case 


DISTRICTING  35 

of  churches.  Moreover,  the  limitation  was  not  uniform  for  the 
district,  inasmuch  as  the  district  was  hilly  and  the  statute  pro- 
vided for  a  uniform  limit  of  height,  not  exceeding  70  feet  "above 
the  surface  of  the  street  at  the  base  line  of  the  Washington  Mon- 
ument." Under  this  restriction  a  higher  building  could  be  erected 
on  lower  ground  than  upon  higher  ground  within  the  district. 
The  appellant  claimed  also  that  the  restriction  was  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preserving  the  beauty  and  architectural  symmetry  of  the 
environment  of  Washington  Monument  and  that  in  the  exercise 
of  the  police  power,  property  rights  cannot  be  impaired  for  purely 
esthetic  purposes.  In  sustaining  the  constitutionality  of  the 
statute,  the  court  held  that  its  purpose  was  not  purely  esthetic, 
but  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  from  fire  handsome  buildings 
and  works  of  art  in  the  locality. 

The  court  overruled  the  objection  raised  on  account  of  lack 
of  uniformity  of  application.  Owing  to  the  hilly  condition  of 
the  prescribed  territory  persons  owning  property  on  lower  ground 
would  be  able  to  construct  higher  buildings  than  those  whose 
property  was  located  on  higher  ground.  This  discrimination  was 
also  justified  on  the  ground  of  protection  against  fire.  The 
exemption  of  churches  from  the  restriction  was  also  upheld  on 
the  ground  that  churches  "do  not  present  the  same  danger  from 
fire  to  the  surrounding  buildings  as  many  other  structures  do, 
chiefly  because  they  are  not  liable  to  become  very  numerous  in 
any  one  locality."  On  the  general  subject  of  regulation  the  court 
states  that  the  use  of  land  must  be  subject  to  reasonable  regula- 
tion, in  the  interest  of  the  general  welfare. 

Indianapolis 

In  1912  the  city  council  of  Indianapolis  passed  an  ordinance 
limiting  the  maximum  height  of  all  buildings  erected  in  the 
city  at  200  feet.  An  ordinance  of  1905  limits  the  height  of 
buildings  erected  on  Monument  Place  at  86  feet.  Monument 
Place  is  the  circular  street  encompassing  the  Soldiers'  and  Sail- 
ors' Monument.  It  has  a  diameter  of  about  600  feet  and  an 
outside  circumference  of  about  1880  feet.  The  constitutionality 
of  the  ordinance  has  never  been  tested  in  the  courts. 


36  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

Washington 

Washington  is  districted  for  height  limitation  purposes  un- 
der an  act  of  Congress  applicable  to  the  District  of  Columbia. 
The  regulations  are  more  stringent  than  those  of  any  other  city 
in  this  country  with  the  possible  exception  of  Boston.  The  lim- 
itations in  the  business  section  are  a  trifle  more  lenient  than  those 
in  Boston,  but  in  the  residence  section  they  are  more  rigid.  All 
streets  are  designated  as  either  business  streets  or  residential 
streets.  No  building  may  be  erected  on  a  business  street  to  a 
greater  height  than  the  width  of  the  widest  abutting  street  in- 
creased by  20  feet,  subject,  however,  to  an  absolute  limit  of  130 
feet.  An  exception  to  this  regulation  is  made  in  two  instances. 
Buildings  on  the  north  side  of  Pennsylvania  Avenue,  between 
First  and  Fifteenth  Streets,  are  allowed  an  extreme  height  of 
160  feet.  Buildings  fronting  or  abutting  on  the  plaza  in  front 
of  the  new  Union  Station  may  not  exceed  a  height  of  80  feet. 
On  residential  streets  the  maximum  height  limit  is  85  feet  sub- 
ject to  certain  provisions.  The  height  may  not  exceed  the  width 
of  the  street  diminished  by  10  feet  on  streets  more  than  70  feet 
in  width.  The  height  may  not  exceed  60  feet  on  streets  between 
60  and  70  feet  in  width.  The  height  may  not  exceed  the  width 
of  the  street  on  streets  less  than  60  feet  in  width.  The  con- 
stitutionality of  these  regulations  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
tested. 

Regulation  of  Open  Spaces  in  Richmond,  Virginia 

By  an  act  of  the  general  assembly  of  Virginia  passed  March 
14,  1908,  councils  of  cities  and  towns  are  authorized,  among 
other  things,  "to  make  regulations  concerning  the  building  of 
houses  in  the  city  or  town,  and  in  their  discretion  ...  in 
particular  districts  or  along  particular  streets,  to  prescribe  and 
establish  building  lines,  or  to  require  property  owners  in  certain 
localities  or  districts  to  leave  a  certain  percentage  of  lots  free 
from  buildings,  and  to  regulate  the  height  of  buildings."  (Acts 
1908,  pp.  623,  624.)  By  virtue  of  this  act,  the  city  council  of 
Richmond  passed  an  ordinance  "that  whenever  the  owners  of 


DISTRICTING 


37 


two-thirds  of  the  property  abutting  on  any  street  shall,  in  writing, 
request  the  committee  on  streets  to  establish  a  building  line  on 
the  side  of  the  square  on  which  their  property  fronts,  the  said 
committee  shall  establish  such  line  so  that  the  same  shall  not  be 
less  than  five  feet  nor  more  than  thirty  feet  from  the  street 
line." 

The  validity  of  a  building  line  regulation  under  the  above 
ordinance  came  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  Appeals  of  Vir- 
ginia in  Eubank  v.  City  of  Richmond,  no  Va.  749,  67  S.  E.  376, 
decided  March  10,  19 10.  In  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  court 
Judge  Whittle  refers  to  the  case  of  Welch  v.  Swasey  and  con- 
cludes as  follows : 

"  In  the  present  case  the  statute  is  neither  unreasonable  nor 
unusual,  and  we  are  justified  in  concluding  that  it  was  passed  by  the 
Legislature  in  good  faith  and  in  the  interest  of  the  health,  safety, 
comfort,  or  convenience  of  the  public,  and  for  the  benefit  of  the 
property  owners  generally  who  are  affected  by  its  provisions,  and 
that  the  enactment  tends  to  accomplish  all,  or  at  least  some,  of  these 
objects.  The  validity  of  such  legislation  is  generally  recognized 
and  upheld." 

The  case  was  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  (Eubank  v.  City  of  Richmond,  33  Sup.  Ct.  76,  decided 
December  2,  1913).  Justice  McKenna  in  delivering  the  opinion 
of  the  court  first  comments  generally  on  the  police  power  as 
follows : 

"  Whether  it  is  a  valid  exercise  of  the  police  power  is  a  ques- 
tion in  the  case,  and  that  power  we  have  defined,  as  far  as  it  is 
capable  of  being  defined  by  general  words,  a  number  of  times.  It 
is  not  susceptible  of  circumstantial  precision.  It  extends,  we  have 
said,  not  only  to  regulations  which  promote  the  public  health, 
morals  and  safety,  but  to  those  which  promote  the  public  conve- 
nience or  the  general  prosperity.  But  necessarily  it  has  its  limits 
and  must  stop  when  it  encounters  the  prohibitions  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. A  clash  will  not,  however,  be  lightly  inferred.  Governmental 
power  must  be  flexible  and  adaptive.  Exigencies  arise,  or  even 
conditions  less  peremptory,  which  may  call  for  or  suggest  legisla- 
tion, and  it  may  be  a  struggle  in  judgment  to  decide  whether  it 


38  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

must  yield  to  the  higher  considerations  expressed  and  determined 
by  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution.'' 

The  court  found  the  regulation  unconstitutional,  its  finding 
being  based  on  the  fact  that  under  the  ordinance  a  building  line 
must  be  established  whenever  two-thirds  of  the  property  owners 
abutting  on  any  street  shall  petition  the  committee  on  streets 
to  establish  such  a  line.  The  court  holds  that  an  important  power 
of  this  kind  cannot  be  vested  in  any  number  of  property  owners 
with  power  to  use  as  they  see  fit  and  presumably  in  their  own 
interest  and  not  in  the  interest  of  public  comfort  or  convenience. 
Though  the  particular  ordinance  in  question  was  held  to  be  un- 
constitutional, the  opinion  of  the  state  court  and  the  general 
treatment  of  the  case  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
give  considerable  ground  for  the  hope  that  building  line  regu- 
lations properly  based  will  be  held  constitutional.  This  is  clearly 
the  view  of  the  matter  taken  by  the  city  of  Richmond,  for,  fol- 
lowing the  above  decision  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  it  passed  another  ordinance  (April  22,  191 3)  prescribing 
the  procedure  by  which  building  lines  may  be  established  in 
the  discretion  of  the  council  in  particular  districts  or  along  par- 
ticular streets. 

Residential  and  Industrial  Districts  in  American  Cities 

The  legislation  of  the  past  few  years  shows  a  distinct  trend 
toward  the  creation  of  specially  restricted  residential  districts. 
Legislation  has  been  enacted  by  New  York,  Massachusetts,  Min- 
nesota, Wisconsin,  Maryland  and  Virginia.  Ordinances  have 
been  passed  in  Richmond,  Milwaukee,  Minneapolis,  Seattle  and 
Los  Angeles. 

New  York  cities  of  the  second  class 

The  new  housing  law  for  cities  of  the  second  class,  passed 
by  the  New  York  legislature  in  191 3  (ch.  774)  authorized  the 
common  council  on  petition  of  two-thirds  of  the  owners  af- 
fected to  establish  residence  districts  within  which  no  building 
other  than  a  single  family  or  a  two  family  dwelling  may  be 
constructed.    A  residence  district  once  created  shall  continue  as 


MINNEAPOLIS 


Darker  sliading  indicates  industrial  districts. 
Ligliter  shading  indicates  residential  districts. 


DISTRICTING  39 

such  until  a  like  petition  shall  be  presented  to  and  approved  by 
the  common  council.  The  unit  of  area  for  the  residence  district 
consists  of  the  lots  fronting  on  one  side  of  a  street  between  two 
intersecting  streets. 

Massachusetts 

In  191 2  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts  passed  an  amend- 
ment to  the  general  municipal  act  (chapter  334,  laws  19 12)  that 
permits  every  city  and  town  in  the  state,  except  Boston,  to  regu- 
late the  height,  area,  location,  and  use  of  buildings  and  other 
structures  within  the  whole  or  any  defined  part  of  its  limits  for 
the  prevention  of  fire  and  the  preservation  of  life,  health  and 
morals.  The  power  extends  to  all  buildings  and  other  structures 
except  bridges,  quays  and  wharves  and  structures  owned  or  oc- 
cupied by  the  national  or  state  government. 

Minnesota 

The  legislature  of  Minnesota  at  its  last  session  (laws  191 3, 
ch.  420)  passed  an  act  empowering  the  cities  of  Duluth,  Minne- 
apolis and  St.  Paul  to  establish  residential  and  industrial  districts. 
The  city  council,  when  petitioned  by  50  per  cent  of  the  property 
owners  in  a  district,  may  by  a  two-thirds  vote  designate  it  as 
being  either  a  residential  or  an  industrial  district.  The  erection 
and  maintenance  of  any  industrial  or  business  establishment,  no 
matter  what  its  character,  may  be  excluded  from  a  residential 
district.  Even  tenements,  apartment  houses  and  hotels  may  be 
excluded  from  such  a  district.  In  the  designation  of  industrial 
districts,  the  city  council  is  authorized  to  classify  the  various  in- 
dustries and  in  its  discretion  to  restrict  each  class  to  a  definite 
and  limited  area.  Upon  a  petition  of  50  per  cent  of  the 
property  owners  in  a  district,  the  council  may  set  aside  its  original 
restrictions,  and  establish  an  industrial  district  out  of  a  resi- 
dential district,  or  vice  versa. 

Minneapolis  has  already  taken  advantage  of  this  act  on 
several  different  occasions.  The  city  council  has  passed  ordi- 
nances classifying  and  designating  certain  buildings,  business  oc- 
cupations, industries  and  enterprises  as  business  industries  and 
defining  and  designating  certain  districts  in  the  city  as  industrial 


40  HEIGHTS  OF.  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

and  residential  districts,  within  which  such  buildings,  occupa- 
tions or  enterprises  may  or  may  not  be  maintained  or  carried 
on.  The  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  these  ordinances 
has  not  as  yet  come  before  the  courts. 

Wisconsin 

The  legislature  of  Wisconsin  at  its  last  session  passed  an  act 
(laws  1913,  chapter  743)  authorizing  cities  of  25,000  inhabitants 
or  more  to  set  aside  exclusive  residential  districts.  There  are 
at  present  eight  cities  in  the  state  of  this  size — Milwaukee,  Green 
Bay,  La  Crosse,  Madison,  Oshkosh,  Racine,  Sheooygan  and 
Superior. 

The  common  council  may  set  apart  portions  of  the  city  to 
be  used  exclusively  for  residential  purposes  and  may  prohibit  the 
erection  and  maintenance  of  factories,  docks  or  other  similar 
concerns  within  such  districts.  The  council  may  also  restrain  the 
encroachment  of  business  houses  upon  purely  residence  districts, 
and  require  the  consent  of  the  majority  of  landowners  and  resi- 
dents of  such  districts,  before  such  business  is  permitted.  The 
power  granted  may  be  exercised  upon  the  initiative  of  the  com- 
mon council,  or  upon  the  petition  of  ten  or  more  residents  in  the 
district  or  block  to  be  affected.  The  enactment  of  ordinances 
excluding  factories,  docks  or  other  similar  concerns  from  resi- 
dential districts  shall  be  a  final  and  conclusive  finding  that  fac- 
tories operated  in  such  districts  are  detrimental  to  the  health, 
comfort  and  welfare  of  the  residents  of  the  city.  Milwaukee 
is  at  present  mapping  out  residential  districts  in  accordance  with 
this  act. 

On  January  13,  19 13,  several  months  prior  to  the  passage 
of  the  above  act,  the  common  council  of  Milwaukee  passed  an 
ordinance  making  it  unlawful  to  maintain  slaughter  houses, 
rendering  plants  or  rag  shops  anywhere  inside  the  city  limits. 

This  ordinance  also  established  what  is  known  as  "the  busi- 
ness section."  Businesses  within  the  business  section  are  subject 
to  no  restrictions,  but  outside  the  business  section  the  ordinance 
forbids  the  maintenance  of  certain  businesses  unless  such  business 
shall  first  obtain  the  written  consent  of  two- thirds  of  all  the 


By  courtesy  of  Wright  Directory  Co. 


MAP  XI— DISTRICTING  IN  MILWAUKEE. 
Industries  are  unrestricted  in  shaded  area. 


DISTRICTING 


41 


real  estate  owners  within  300  feet  of  the  space  proposed  to  be 
occupied.  The  businesses  coming  within  the  prohibition  are: 
Livery,  boarding  or  sales  stables,  gas  reservoirs  or  holders,  paint, 
oil  or  varnish  works,  salesrooms  or  storage  rooms  for  automo- 
biles and  garages  for  the  keeping  of  automobiles  for  hire.  When 
outside  the  business  section  these  businesses  must  be  maintained 
in  buildings  that  conform  to  the  requirements  prescribed  within 
the  fire  district.  An  ordinance  passed  on  January  11,  1913, 
imposes  similar  conditions  on  garages  maintained  in  certain 
blocks  in  the  business  section  that  are  of  a  residential  character. 
No  garage  may  be  maintained  in  a  block  where  two-thirds  of 
the  buildings  in  a  block  are  devoted  exclusively  to  residential  pur- 
poses without  the  written  consent  of  the  property  owners  on  both 
sides  of  the  street  or  alley  in  such  block. 

Baltimore 

In  1912  the  state  legislature  of  Maryland  passed  an  act 
(ch.  693)  regulating  the  erection  of  dwelling  houses  in  that 
part  of  the  city  of  Baltimore  known  as  Forest  Park.  The 
dwelling  houses  constructed  in  this  district,  the  area  of  which 
is  about  a  half  mile  square,  must  be  separate  and  unattached 
buildings.  Frame  dwellings  must  be  at  least  20  feet  apart;  stone 
and  brick  dwellings  at  least  10  feet  apart.  The  constitutionality 
of  the  act  has  not  come  before  the  courts. 

The  most  important  classification  of  buildings  according  to 
character  and  use  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  as  a  whole,  is  that 
found  in  section  47  of  the  building  code.  This  section  (subdi- 
visions 12  and  13)  limits  the  location  of  certain  buildings. 
These  buildings  are:  (1)  hospitals  and  buildings  for  treatment 
of  the  feeble-minded;  (2)  sanatoriums;  (3)  livery  stables;  (4) 
sale  and  boarding  stables;  (5)  garages;  (6)  blacksmith  shops; 
(7)  junk  shops;  (8)  brick,  tile  and  terra  cotta  factories;  (9) 
stoneware  and  earthenware  factories;  (10)  paint  factories; 
(11)  soap  factories;  (12)  candle  factories;  (13)  wood- 
working factories;  (14)  the  storing  and  altering  of  packing 
boxes  on  any  lot  or  in  any  building;  (15)  lumber  yards;  (16) 
planing  mills ;  (17)  iron  mills;  (18)  foundries;  (19)  breweries; 


42  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

(20)  distilleries;  (21)  packing  houses;  (22)  gas  works;  (23) 
acid  works;  (24)  the  manufacture  of  fertilizers. 

No  permit  for  the  erection  of  any  of  the  above  buildings  is 
given  by  the  inspector  of  buildings  except  by  the  approval  of  the 
mayor.  In  granting  his  approval,  the  mayor  incorporates  such 
regulations  in  the  permit  regarding  the  location  of  the  building 
as  may,  in  his  judgment,  be  necessary  to  safeguard  the  interests 
of  the  public.  Permits  for  such  buildings  are  issued  only  after 
10  days'  public  notice  of  the  application  therefor. 

If  protests  are  filed  against  the  granting  of  the  permit,  the 
building  inspector  holds  a  hearing.  After  hearing  the  protests 
and  considering  the  rights  of  the  surrounding  property  owners, 
the  building  inspector  makes  a  presentation  of  the  facts  to  the 
mayor.  Where  there  is  a  protest,  the  permit  requires  the  joint 
approval  of  the  inspector  and  the  mayor.  In  granting  or  with- 
holding their  approval  to  a  permit,  the  building  inspector  and  the 
mayor  are  prompted  by  three  considerations :  ( 1 )  the  fire  hazard 
of  the  proposed  building;  (2)  the  effect  of  the  proposed  building 
on  surrounding  land  values;  and  (3)  the  effect  of  the  proposed 
building  on  the  general  welfare  of  the  residents  in  the  immediate 
vicinity. 

Seattle 

Under  the  Seattle  building  code  adopted  in  July,  19 13,  no 
building  not  now  used  for  such  purposes  may  be  reconstructed, 
altered  or  repaired  to  be  used  for  any  of  the  following  purposes 
without  the  consent  of  the  city  council  and  the  mayor :  ( 1 )  con- 
finement of  insane  children  or  adults;  (2)  manufacture  of 
cotton  wadding,  laps  or  bats;  (3)  refining  of  petroleum  or  any 
of  its  products;  (4)  distillation  of  spirits  of  turpentine  or  var- 
nish; (5)  manufacture  of  explosives;  (6)  rendering  of  fats, 
lards  and  like  products;  (7)  hair  factory;  (8)  lime  kiln;  (9) 
tannery;  (10)  refinery;  (11)  abattoir;  (12)  glue  factory;  (13) 
manufacture  of  roofing  materials  of  chemical  composition;  (14) 
pulverizing  charcoal;  (15)  stockyards;  (16)  poudrette  works; 
(17)  asphalt  plant;  (18)  manufacture  of  fertilizers;  (19) 
smelter. 


DISTRICTING  43 

Before  any  ordinance  shall  be  passed  authorizing  the  con- 
struction, alteration  and  repair  of  any  "  prohibited  "  building  at 
least  10  days'  notice  shall  be  given  by  the  party  applying  for  the 
passage  of  such  ordinance  by  a  publication  to  that  effect  of  at 
least  four  insertions  in  two  or  more  daily  newspapers.  This  notice 
must  specify  the  lot  upon  which  such  building  is  to  be  erected, 
altered  or  repaired  and  the  purposes  for  which  it  is  intended  to 
be  used  in  sufficient  detail  to  apprise  the  property  owners  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  exact  location  and  nature  of  the  proposed  im- 
provement. Notice  of  such  application  must,  moreover,  be  con- 
spicuously posted  on  the  property. 

In  addition  to  the  above,  the  following  buildings  are  limited 
as  to  location:  (i)  hospitals  and  buildings  for  treatment  of  the 
feeble  minded;  (2)  sanatoriums;  (3)  dairies;  (4)  dog  pounds; 
(5)  blacksmith  shops;  (6)  junk  shops;  (7)  rag  shops;  (8) 
brick,  tile  and  terra  cotta  factories;  (9)  stoneware  and  earthen- 
ware factories;  (10)  paint  factories;  (11)  soap  factories;  (12) 
candle  factories;  (13)  woodworking  factories;  (14)  lumber 
yards;  (15)  planing  mills;  (16)  iron  mills;  (17)  foundries; 
(18)  breweries;  (19)  distilleries;  (20)  packing  houses;  (21) 
gas  works;  (22)  acid  works. 

No  permit  is  issued  for  a  "limited"  building  until  at  least 
10  days'  notice  of  the  application  has  been  published  four  times 
in  two  or  more  daily  papers  and  until  notice  of  such  application 
has  been  conspicuously  posted  upon  the  property  for  a  like  period 
of  time.  If  any  owner  of  property  within  500  feet  of  the  pro- 
posed location  files  a  protest  with  the  superintendent  of  build- 
ings, the  matter  is  referred  to  the  board  of  public  works  for  deter- 
mination, after  hearing.  Special  regulations  govern  the  location 
of  stables  and  public  garages. 

Los  Angeles 

The  first  districting  ordinance  in  Los  Angeles  was  passed  in 
1909.  The  entire  city,  with  the  exception  of  two  suburbs,  is 
divided  into  industrial  and  residential  districts.  There  are 
twenty-five  industrial  districts  and  one  residential  district.  The 
residential  district  comprises  the  whole  districted  territory  ex- 


44  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

elusive  of  the  areas  within  the  several  industrial  districts.  It 
therefore  encircles  and  surrounds  many  of  the  industrial  dis- 
tricts. 

The  so-called  industrial  districts  do  not  fairly  indicate  the 
extent  of  the  industrial  area  of  the  city.  In  addition  to  the  in- 
dustrial districts  there  are  fifty-eight  districts,  known  as  "resi- 
dence exceptions,"  in  the  residential  district  that  are  exempt  from 
the  regulations  applicable  to  the  residential  district  and  in  which 
business  is  permitted  subject  to  certain  conditions. 

The  industrial  districts  vary  considerably  in  shape  and  size. 
The  largest  district  has  an  area  of  several  square  miles.  At  its 
greatest  dimensions,  it  measures  five  miles  in  length  and  two 
miles  in  width.  The  smallest  district  comprises  one  solitary  lot. 
The  combined  area  of  the  several  industrial  districts  aggregates 
not  more  than  one-tenth  that  of  the  residential  district.  The  in- 
dustrial districts  are,  on  the  whole,  pretty  well  grouped  in  one 
part  of  the  city. 

The  "residence  exceptions"  are  all  small.  The  largest  is 
about  a  half  mile  square.  With  this  exception  no  "residence  ex- 
ception" covers  a  greater  area  than  two  city  blocks.  In  most 
instances  these  districts  do  not  occupy  more  than  one  or  two  lots. 
The  combined  area  of  the  fifty-eight  "residence  exceptions"  is 
probably  not  more  than  one  per  cent  of  the  residential  district. 
The  "residence  exceptions"  are,  however,  scattered  more  widely 
throughout  the  residential  district  than  are  the  industrial  dis- 
tricts. 

In  general  the  distinction  between  the  industrial  districts  and 
the  residential  district  is  this:  All  kinds  of  business  and  man- 
ufacturing establishments  are  unrestrained  in  most  of  the  indus- 
trial districts,  while  certain  specified  businesses  are  excluded  from 
the  residential  district.  Those  businesses  not  especially  excluded 
are  permitted  in  the  residential  district.  All  but  the  very  lightest 
manufacturing  is  prohibited  in  the  residential  district.  The  less 
offensive  business  and  manufacturing  establishments  excluded 
from  the  residential  district  may  be  carried  on  in  the  "residence 
exceptions."    The  owners  of  sixty  per  cent  of  the  neighboring 


DISTRICTING  45 

property  frontage  must  give  their  consent  to  the  creation  of  any 
"residence  exception."    (See  also  Appendix  IV.) 

The  constitutionality  of  the  industrial  and  residential  dis- 
tricts in  Los  Angeles  was  sustained  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
California  in  October,  191 1,  in  the  case  of  Ex  Parte  Quong  Wo, 
161  Cal.  220,  118  Pac.  714. 

When  the  city  had  been  districted  about  no  Chinese  and 
Japanese  laundries  found  themselves  in  the  residential  district. 
The  city  immediately  undertook  to  remove  them  to  the  industrial 
districts.  The  present  mayor,  Mr.  H.  H.  Rose,  then  a  police 
judge,  upheld  the  ordinance  and  sentenced  a  Chinaman,  Quong 
Wo,  to  pay  a  fine  of  $100  or  to  serve  100  days  in  jail.  Wo 
appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  state,  and  the  ordinance 
was  sustained. 

The  petitioner,  a  native  and  citizen  of  China,  was  charged 
with  having  maintained  and  carried  on  a  public  laundry  and 
wash  house  within  the  residential  district.  He  had  conducted 
such  laundry  and  wash  house  at  said  location,  occupying  the 
premises  under  a  lease  which  had  two  years  yet  to  run. 

The  court  stated  that  it  could  not  take  judicial  notice  that 
there  had  been  unjust  discrimination  in  excepting  small  parcels 
from  the  residential  district  of  the  city  as  established  by  ordi- 
nance, and  adding  them  to  the  industrial  district ;  the  presumption 
being  in  favor  of  the  legality  of  the  action  of  the  legislative 
body.  That  small  parcels,  consisting  of  only  one  city  lot,  were 
excepted  by  the  city  council  from  the  "residence  district"  of  a  city 
as  fixed  by  ordinance,  within  which  district  certain  occupations 
could  not  be  followed,  and  added  to  the  industrial  district,  when 
such  parcels  were  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  parts  of  the  "resi- 
dence district,"  did  not  of  itself  show  unjust  discrimination  in 
excepting  territory  from  the  residence  district. 

The  court  held  that  lawful  occupations,  such  as  laundry  bus- 
iness, might  be  confined  to  certain  limits  in  the  city  wherever 
such  restrictions  might  reasonably  be  found  necessary  to  protect 
the  public  health,  morals  and  comfort.  An  ordinance  prohibiting 
the  maintenance  of  public  laundries  and  wash  houses  in  those 
parts  of  the  city  designated  as  the  "residential  district"  could  not 


46  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

be  said  to  be  unreasonable  and  invalid,  though  large  parts  of  such 
districts  might  be  sparsely  built  up,  in  the  absence  of  facts  show- 
ing unjust  discrimination.  Whether  restrictions  upon  the  opera- 
tion of  a  business  in  certain  portions  of  a  city  are  reasonably 
necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  public  health,  safety  and  wel- 
fare, the  court  construed  as  being  primarily  for  the  determina- 
tion of  the  city  council.  Such  action  by  the  city  council,  the  court 
held,  would  not  be  disturbed  by  the  court,  unless  the  regulations 
had  no  relation  to  the  public  health,  safety  or  welfare,  or  unless 
they  clearly  invaded  personal  or  property  rights  under  the  guise 
of  police  regulations. 

In  Ex  Parte  Montgomery,  163  Cal.  457,  125  Pac.  1070,  the 
Supreme  Court  rendered  a  decision  that  was  almost  identical  with 
that  in  Ex  Parte  Quong  Wo,  this  time  ejecting  a  lumber  yard 
from  the  residential  district. 

In  Ex  Parte  Hadacheck,  132  Pac.  589,  decided  May  15,  1913, 
the  Supreme  Court  again  sustained  the  constitutionality  of  the 
industrial  and  residential  districts.  In  this  case,  the  petitioner 
owned  a  brick  yard  in  the  residential  district.  He  had  acquired 
the  land  for  this  brick  yard  in  1902,  before  the  territory  to  which 
the  ordinance  was  directed  had  been  annexed  to  Los  Angeles. 
The  land  contained  valuable  deposits  of  clay  suitable  for  the  man- 
ufacture of  brick,  and  was  more  valuable  for  brickmaking  than 
for  any  other  purpose.  The  petitioner  had  during  the  entire 
period  of  his  ownership  used  the  land  for  brickmaking  and  had 
erected  on  it  the  kilns,  machinery  and  buildings  necessary  for 
such  manufacture. 

In  upholding  the  constitutionality  and  ejecting  the  brick  yard 
from  the  residential  district,  the  court  held  that  the  police  power 
is  not  restricted  to  the  suppression  of  nuisances,  but  extends  to 
the  regulation  of  the  conduct  of  business  and  to  the  use  of  prop- 
erty to  the  end  that  public  health  or  morals  may  not  be  impaired 
or  endangered. 

The  court  also  held  that  the  right  of  the  legislature,  in  exer- 
cising the  police  power  to  regulate  or  in  proper  cases  to  prohibit 
the  conduct  of  a  given  business,  is  not  limited  by  the  fact  that 
the  value  of  investments  made  in  the  business  prior  to  any  legis- 


DISTRICTING  47 

iative  action  will  be  greatly  diminished.  A  business  which,  when 
established,  is  entirely  unobjectionable,  may  by  the  growth  of 
population  in  the  vicinity  become  a  source  of  danger  to  the  health 
and  comfort  of  those  who  have  come  to  be  occupants  of  the 
surrounding  territory.  If  the  legislature  should  then  prohibit  its 
further  conduct,  the  proprietor  can  have  no  complaint  upon  the 
mere  fact  that  he  has  been  carrying  on  the  trade  in  that  locality 
for  a  long  time.  The  power  to  regulate  the  use  of  property  or 
the  conduct  of  a  business  is,  of  course,  not  arbitrary.  The  re- 
striction must  bear  a  reasonable  relation  to  some  legitimate  pur- 
pose within  the  purview  of  the  police  power. 

Where  a  region  surrounding  a  brick  yard  has  become  pri- 
marily a  residential  section,  and  the  occupants  of  neighboring 
dwellings  are  seriously  discommoded  by  the  operations  of  the 
yard,  the  court  held  that  a  prohibition  of  the  business  in  the  dis- 
trict is  not  objectionable,  as  being  an  arbitrary  invasion  of  private 
right,  but  is  a  valid  exercise  of  police  power  to  prevent  injury  to 
others. 

Where  there  are  reasons  justifying  the  prohibition  of  a  busi- 
ness within  an  area  described  in  an  ordinance  adopted  by  a  city, 
the  court  states  that  in  determining  the  validity  of  the  prohibi- 
tion, it  will  not  consider  whether  conditions  in  other  parts  of 
the  city  require  a  like  prohibition,  as  that  presents  a  legislative 
question. 

Ontario,  Canada 

The  councils  of  cities  having  a  population  of  not  less  than 
100,000  may  under  section  410  of  the  Ontario  Municipal  Act 
pass  by-laws  prohibiting,  regulating  and  controlling  the  location 
or  erection  of  apartment  or  tenement  houses  and  of  garages  to 
be  used  for  hire  within  any  defined  area  or  on  land  abutting  on 
defined  highways  or  parts  of  highways.  An  apartment  or  tene- 
ment house  is  a  building  that  provides  three  or  more  separate 
suites  or  sets  of  rooms  for  separate  occupation  by  one  or  more 
persons.  Toronto  has,  in  accordance  with  these  provisions,  re- 
stricted the  character  of  the  development  of  a  large  portion  of  its 


48 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


territory.  Apartment  houses  and  garages  are  excluded  from 
most  of  the  residential  streets  of  the  city. 

The  Municipal  Act  of  Ontario  (Sec.  409)  empowers  the 
council  of  every  city  in  the  Province  to  pass  by-laws  preventing, 
regulating  and  controlling  the  location,  erection  and  use  of  the 
following  buildings :  livery,  boarding  or  sales  stables ;  stables  in 
which  horses  are  kept  for  hire  or  kept  for  use  with  vehicles  in 
conveying  passengers,  or  for  express  purposes ;  stables  for  horses 
for  delivery  purposes;  laundries;  butcher  shops;  stores;  factories; 
blacksmith  shops ;  forges ;  dog  kennels  and  hospitals  or  infirmaries 
for  horses,  dogs  or  other  animals.  The  erection  or  use  of  build- 
ings for  all  or  any  of  these  purposes  may  be  prohibited  within 
any  defined  area  or  areas  or  on  land  abutting  on  any  defined 
highway  or  part  of  a  highway.  By-laws  of  this  character  may 
not  be  passed  except  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  all  the  members 
of  the  council.  Such  by-laws,  moreover,  may  not  apply  to  a 
building  which  was  on  April  26,  1904,  erected  or  used  for  any 
of  these  purposes  so  long  as  it  is  used  as  it  was  used  on  that 
date. 

Districting  in  German  cities 

Districting  is  most  fully  developed  in  German  cities.  There 
it  is  known  as  the  zone  system.  The  term  zone  was  particularly 
appropriate  in  Germany  where  special  regulations  were  applied  to 
the  successive  belts  of  building  development  surrounding  the 
central  walled  city.  At  present,  however,  in  many -German  cities 
the  districts  are  not  concentric  zones,  and  the  system  might  more 
appropriately  be  called  the  "district  system.,, 

The  district  system  is  a  method  of  regulating  buildings  as  a 
part  of  a  general  city  plan.  It  has  two  characteristics :  it  groups 
buildings  of  different  classes  and  it  limits  the  density  of  buildings 
progressively,  allowing  buildings  to  be  higher,  and  to  cover  more 
of  the  lot,  in  the  centers  where  land  values  are  greater  and  busi- 
ness needs  require  more  concentration,  and  making  the  require- 
ments more  and  more  severe  as  the  distance  from  these  centers 
increases. 

Under  the  German  rules  the  height  of  buildings  is  invariably 


MAP  XIII — DISTRICTING  IN  FRANKFORT. 


DISTRICTING  49 

regulated  with  relation  to  the  width  of  the  street  upon  which  the 
building  is  situated;  and  also,  usually,  by  a  maximum  which, 
irrespective  of  the  width  of  the  street,  it  must  not  exceed.  In 
many  cities,  in  the  zone  or  zones  of  greatest  concentration,  a 
height  a  little  in  excess  of  the  street  width  is  allowed;  in  the  other 
zones  it  must  not  exceed  that  width,  and  in  the  outer  zone  or 
zones  the  maximum  limits  it  to  less.  Usually,  too,  there  are  min- 
imum courts,  and  all  rooms  constructed  for  the  residence  or  long 
continued  business  use  of  mankind  must  have  a  window  upon  a 
court  of  at  least  a  specified  size.  The  proportion  of  the  lot  that 
may  be  covered  by  buildings,  also,  is  almost  invariably  limited 
progressively,  buildings  on  corner  lots  in  each  zone  being  allowed 
to  cover  more  than  those  on  inside  lots.  The  ordinances  in  the 
different  cities  differ  in  detail,  but  in  general  the  system  is  the 
same.  The  provisions  of  the  Frankfort  ordinance  illustrate  it 
as  well  as  any  other : 

The  old  or  inner  city  is  the  first  zone  or  district.  Here  the 
highest  buildings  are  allowed.  They  must  not  exceed  the  width 
of  the  street,  plus  about  10  feet  (three  meters).  Or  in  any  case, 
however  wide  the  street,  about  66  feet  (20  meters).  This  is  to 
the  cornice;  the  roof  above  this  is  restricted  by  an  angle,  and  in 
no  case  may  exceed  about  30  feet  (nine  meters).  The  roof  is 
more  than  mere  roof ;  it  is  a  roof  story,  in  which  there  are  rooms, 
which,  however,  may  not  always  be  used  for  residence.  The 
number  of  stories  is  also  restricted;  in  this  zone  it  must  not 
exceed  five,  and  the  roof  story. 

Here  in  the  inner  city,  also,  the  greatest  proportion  of  the  lot 
may  be  covered  with  buildings,  three-quarters — for  corner  lots 
five-sixths.  Factories  are  allowed,  but  are  not  numerous.  Solid 
blocks  are  permitted.  The  city  here  presents  the  appearance  of 
being  fully  built  up  to  a  fairly  uniform  height. 

The  outer  city  is  divided  into  an  outer,  an  inner,  and  a  country 
zone,  in  which  the  height  of  buildings  allowed  progressively  de- 
creases, and  the  amount  of  the  lot  that  must  be  left  free  of  build- 
ings progressively  increases.  In  each  of  these  zones  are  residence, 
factory  and  mixed  sections.  In  the  residence  sections,  factories 
are  so  discouraged  as  to  be  practically  forbidden.   In  the  factory 


50  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

sections,  situated  along  the  railroads,  the  harbor,  and  out  of  the 
city  in  the  direction  so  that  the  prevailing  winds  will  blow  the 
smoke  away  from  the  city,  residences  are  forbidden.  In  the 
factory  sections,  the  restrictions  on  height  and  amount  of  lot 
covered  do  not  become  progressively  greater.  The  mixed  sec- 
tions are  near  the  factory  sections,  and  there,  too,  under  certain 
mild  restrictions,  many  sorts  of  manufacturing  are  permitted. 

In  the  residence  section  a  space  between  neighboring  houses 
of  about  10  feet  (three  meters)  in  the  inner  zone  and  a  third  more 
in  the  outer  zone  is  required.  Groups  of  buildings  are,  however, 
allowed  with  a  somewhat  less  proportionate  amount  of  free  space 
for  the  group  as  a  whole. 

Certain  parts  of  the  newly  added  territory  of  the  city,  beyond 
all  the  other  zones,  and  forming  a  zone  by  itself,  have  been  re- 
served for  a  villa  section,  in  which  only  country  houses  are 
allowed. 

In  all  these  zones  the  amount  of  the  lot  that  must  be  left  free 
progresses,  until,  in  the  villa  section,  it  is  seven-tenths  of  the 
entire  lot.  Thus,  also,  the  permissible  height  decreases  to  about 
53  feet  (16  meters)  and  the  number  of  stories  to  two.  This  does 
not  include  the  roof  story  and  the  actual  roof,  which  together,  in 
this  zone,  must  not  exceed  about  six  feet  (1.8  meter)  in  height. 
In  no  case,  however,  may  the  house  exceed  in  height,  except  for 
the  roof  story  and  roof,  the  width  of  the  street  upon  which  it 
stands. 


CHAPTER  V— FIFTH   AVENUE  CONDITIONS 


The  matter  of  restricting  heights  on  Fifth  Avenue  was 
brought  up  by  the  Fifth  Avenue  Association  two  years  ago.  In 
the  winter  of  1911-1912,  Hon.  George  McAneny,  President  of 
the  Borough  of  Manhattan,  appointed  a  commission  of  seven 
members,  called  the  Fifth  Avenue  Commission,  of  which  Mr. 
Arnold  W.  Brunner  was  chairman  and  Mr.  Robert  Grier  Cooke 
secretary.  In  March,  1912,  they  presented  to  Borough  President 
McAneny  the  following  recommendations : 

"  The  height  of  buildings  on  Fifth  Avenue  and  within  an  area 
300  feet  east  and  west  of  the  avenue  should  be  restricted  to 
125  feet  to  the  cornice  line,  with  not  more  than  two  mansard  roof 
stories  additional,  the  restriction  not  to  apply  to  steeples,  domes, 
towers  or  cupolas  of  fireproof  material  erected  for  ornamental 
purposes." 

In  May,  19 12,  Borough  President  McAneny  introduced  this 
resolution  in  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment,  except 
that  as  presented  the  300  foot  area  on  either  side  of  the  avenue 
was  reduced  to  100  feet.  No  action  was  taken  at  the  time,  but 
the  entire  question  was  specifically  referred  to  this  Commission 
in  the  resolution  providing  for  its  appointment. 

There  is  no  more  striking  example  of  the  necessity  of  dis- 
tricting the  city  for  the  purposes  of  building  control  than  is 
furnished  by  Fifth  Avenue.  The  avenue  will  serve  best  the 
interests  both  of  the  abutting  owners  and  of  the  entire  city, 
if  it  is  preserved  as  an  attractive  thoroughfare  and  high  class 
retail  center.  The  highest  usefulness  of  the  lower  part  of  the 
avenue  has  already  been  impaired  by  high  buildings,  the  intro- 
duction of  factories  and  the  resulting  congestion  of  the  street. 
This  congestion  of  the  street  with  factory  workers  and  with 
commercial  vehicles  has  destroyed  this  part  of  the  avenue  as  a 
shopping  center  and  has  impaired  real  estate  values.  The  prob- 
lem is  to  preserve  upper  Fifth  Avenue  from  a  similar  fate. 

A  high  class  retail  center  of  the  standard  required  by  New 
York  City  conditions  must  be  on  a  broad,  attractive  thorough- 


52  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

fare  easily  reached  by  motor  from  the  high  class  hotel  and 
residential  sections.  It  must  be  in  large  measure  free  from 
the  congestion  with  trucks  and  employees  incident  to  an  indus- 
trial neighborhood.  Fifth  Avenue  has  until  recent  years  ful- 
filled these  conditions  to  an  exceptional  degree. 

Of  the  Fifth  Avenue  frontage  between  Washington  Square 
and  59th  Street  one-fourth  is  devoted  to  dwellings  and  three- 
fourths  to  business.  Hotels  occupy  9  per  cent  of  the  frontage; 
stores  11  per  cent;  stores  and  dwellings  5  per  cent1;  stores  and 
factories  28  per  cent;  and  stores  and  offices  21  per  cent. 

More  than  half  of  the  18,193  ±eet  frontage  developed  with 
private  buildings  has  a  height  not  exceeding  75  feet.  The  build- 
ings having  a  height  not  exceeding  125  feet  constitute  70  per 
cent  of  the  frontage;  those  not  exceeding  150  feet,  82  per 
cent;  those  not  exceeding  200  feet,  91  per  cent;  and  those  over 
200  feet,  only  9  per  cent. 

Fifth  Avenue  below  12th  Street  is  residential.  From  12th 
Street  to  23d  Street  it  is  crowded  with  tall  loft  buildings,  as 
are  also  the  side  streets  leading  into  it.  The  greater  part  of 
these  lofts  are  used  for  light  manufacturing  especially  of  sea- 
sonal goods.  Their  effect  on  Fifth  Avenue  is  shown  by  a 
statement  made  to  the  Commission  in  behalf  of  the  Fifth  Avenue 
Association  by  Mr.  Bruce  M.  Falconer: 

"  Many  of  them  are  cheap  in  construction  and  appearance  and 
are  at  the  same  time  of  considerable  height,  the  highest  reaching 
to  about  18  stories.  It  is  anticipated  that  a  height  restriction  will 
at  least  keep  down  the  number  of  such  structures,  and  if  nothing 
else  it  would  cut  down  the  number  of  floors  and  greatly  aid  the 
problem  of  congestion.  These  buildings  are  crowded  with  their 
hundreds  and  thousands  of  garment  workers  and  operators  who 
swarm  down  upon  the  avenue  for  the  lunch  hour  between 
twelve  and  one  o'clock.  They  stand  upon  or  move  slowly  along 
the  sidewalks  and  choke  them  up.  Pedestrians  thread  their  way 
through  the  crowds  as  best  they  may.  Women  shoppers  tend 
to  avoid  the  section  in  question  at  this  hour.    Ordinary  business 


^nly  buildings  used  for  hoth  store  and  dwelling  purposes  are  included 
under  "  stores  and  dwellings." 


Larger   numeral   indicates   height   in  feet. 


FIFTH  AVENUE  CONDITIONS  53 

is  practically  at  a  standstill  until  one  o'clock,  and  shopkeepers 
complain  bitterly  of  financial  losses. 

"  Aside  from  the  obvious  discomfort  and  undesirability  of 
these  conditions  in  themselves,  the  result  of  them  has  been  that 
high-class  shops  and  stores  have  been  driven  away  from  this 
part  of  the  avenue,  property  values  and  rentals  have  fallen,  and  the 
avenue  has  undergone  many  changes.  But  the  worst  of  the  matter 
is  that  this  condition  of  affairs,  at  first  confined  to  below  23d 
Street,  has  in  the  last  two  years  been  breaking  out  in  the  Fifth  Ave- 
nue district  all  the  way  up  to  50th  Street,  and  as  work  ends  at  the 
close  of  the  day  thousands  of  these  operators  pour  out  upon  the 
sidewalks  within  a  short  space  of  time,  and  congest  the  side  streets 
with  a  steady  stream  of  humanity  that  moves  its  way  to  the  East 
Side." 

The  highest  class  of  department  stores  and  many  first  class 
shops  are  located  between  34th  and  426.  Streets.  Above  426. 
Street  up  to  59th  Street  except  for  a  few  tall  office  buildings,  the 
avenue  is  devoted  exclusively  to  high  class  shops  and  splendid 
hotels,  clubs,  churches  and  private  residences. 

We  concur  in  the  recommendation  of  the  Fifth  Avenue  Com- 
mission that  buildings  on  Fifth  Avenue  be  limited  to  a  height  at 
the  building  line  of  125  feet.  For  the  area  on  either  side  of 
Fifth  Avenue,  125  feet  should  also  be  the  maximum  height  limit, 
but  in  view  of  the  fact  that  height  limitations  should  bear  some 
relation  to  street  width,  we  recommend  that  no  building  in  this 
area  should  exceed  in  height  il/2  times  the  street  width.  This 
will  mean  that  on  the  60  foot  cross  streets  the  height  at  the 
building  line  will  be  limited  to  90  feet.  Under  the  general  dis- 
tricting plan  which  we  have  suggested  (page  69),  the  entire 
Fifth  Avenue  section  would  be  subjected  to  class  D  restrictions, 
i.  c,  il/z  times  street  width  but  not  over  125  feet.  The  section 
would  thus  be  subjected  to  the  same  restrictions  that  we  have 
considered  appropriate  for  a  large  part  of  the  Borough  of 
Manhattan. 

In  addition,  we  recommend  that,  under  the  general  control 
over  the  location  of  industries  which  we  are  convinced  should  be 
exercised  by  the  city,  factories  should  be  excluded  from  the 
upper  Fifth  Avenue  section. 


54 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


TABLE  III  BUILDINGS  ON  FIFTH  AVENUE  BY  CLASSES 


G 

<u  bo 


in 


bo 
.5 

Q 


5  bo 


<u  O 


c/jO 


i 


i 

1 

.2 

3  

2 

12 

1 

1 

1 

1 

18 

4-3 

3 

59 

13 

10 

14 

9 

108 

26. 1 

5  

i 

26 

13 

14 

45 

16 

116 

28.0 

6  

I 

4 

2 

7 

3i 

6 

55 

13-3 

7  

2 

5 

4 

4 

5 

17 

4.1 

8  

3 

6 

1 

6 

5 

23 

5.0 

9  

2 

3 

2 

4 

8 

1.9 

1 

3 

2 

6 

1.4 

1 

2 

15 

7 

28 

6.8 

3 

1 

6 

2 

12 

2.9 

13  

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

•  7 

14  

1 

1 

2 

•  5 

15  

1 

2 

•  5 

16  

2 

1 

3 

•  7 

17  

18  

2 

1 

4 

1.0 

19  

2 

1 

3 

•  7 

20  

2 

2 

•  5 

3 

3 

•  7 

Total  

7 

106 

17 

47 

35 

134 

68 

414 

100.0 

Per  cent  of  total. 

1-7 

25-6 

4.1 

n. 3 

8.5 

32.4 

16.4 

100.0 

Average  stories  in 

8.6 

6.4 

4.0 

4.4 

10.5 

5-7 

6.0 

7.0 

FIFTH  AVENUE  CONDITIONS 


55 


TABLE   IV  FRONTAGE   ON    FIFTH    AVENUE   BY    CLASSES  OF 

BUILDINGS 


2^ 
in 


*2  « 

5  bo 


3  £ 


Ph  o 


I 


2 

30 

30 

.2 

3  

120 

904 

20 

25 

22 

100 

1,191 

6.6 

4  

207 

2,164 

422 

220 

429 

330 

3,772 

20.7 

5  

30 

828 

100 

340 

35i 

1,310 

597 

3,556 

19.6 

6  

95 

102 

142 

253 

93 

1,042 

349 

2,076 

11. 4 

7  

255 

340 

22 

172 

195 

984 

5-4 

8  .. 

108 

193 

49i 

114 

248 

227 

1,273 

7.0 

9  

75 

252 

435 

2.4 

100 

125 

62 

287 

1.6 

48 

143 

128 

115 

911 

472 

1,817 

10. 0 

12  

335 

32 

226 

140 

733 

4.0 

13  

38 

50 

92 

180 

1.0 

14  

28 

140 

168 

•9 

15  

58 

62 

120 

•7 

16  

195 

78 

273 

1-5 

17  

18  

75 

220 

35 

330 

i!8 

19  

308 

75 

383 

2.1 

H5 

115 

.6 

460 

460 

2.5 

Total  .  .  . 

452 

4,222 

1,651 

1,994 

972 

5,in 

378i 

18,183 

100.0 

Per  cent 

of  total. 

2-5 

23.2 

9-1 

II. 0 

5-3 

28.1 

20.8 

100.0 

Average 

frontage 

6.3 

6.1 

height  in  stones. 

4.2 

4-3 

10.5 

8.1 

10.3 

7.5 

CHAPTER  VI 


CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS 

The  Commission  finds  conclusive  evidence  of  the  need  of 
greater  public  control  over  building  development.  The  present 
almost  unrestricted  power  to  build  to  any  height,  over  any  pro- 
portion of  the  lot,  for  any  desired  use  and  in  any  part  of  the 
city,  has  resulted  in  injury  to  real  estate  and  business  interests, 
and  to  the  health,  safety  and  general  welfare  of  the  city. 

There  are  many  cases  where  high  buildings  have  destroyed 
rentable  values  of  neighboring  buildings  and  in  turn,  perhaps, 
have  had  their  own  rentable  values  destroyed  by  other  buildings. 
There  are  limited  areas  that  seem  in  process  of  being  smothered 
by  their  own  growth ;  light  and  air  are  being  largely  shut  off  and 
the  streets  are  becoming  entirely  inadequate.  There  are  high 
class  business  districts  such  as  lower  Fifth  Avenue  that  have  seen 
property  values  impaired  by  the  encroachment  of  factories. 
There  are  high  class  residence  districts  in  which  great  property 
losses  have  resulted  through  the  coming  of  stores  and  apartment 
houses.  There  are  areas  in  The  Bronx  and  in  Brooklyn  where 
lower  East  Side  conditions  of  excessive  congestion  of  population 
are  being  repeated. 

Profiting  by  past  experience  we  can  do  much  to  safeguard 
the  future.  We  can  prevent  the  repetition  all  over  the  city  of 
conditions  and  evils  now  confined  to  comparatively  limited  areas. 
Regulations,  however,  must  be  carefully  devised  so  as  not  to 
interfere  unduly  with  existing  property  values.  We  believe  that 
well  considered  restrictions  can  be  worked  out  which  instead  of 
proving  a  menace  to  property  values,  will  in  general  tend  to  con- 
serve and  in  some  cases  to  increase  property  values.  Reasonable 
restrictions  on  the  use  of  land  will  work  to  the  mutual  advantage 
of  all  owners. 

The  Commission  heard  the  testimony  and  opinions  of  real 
estate  experts,  including  the  heads  of  several  institutions  which 
lend  great  sums  of  money  secured  by  mortgages  on  real  estate. 
This  testimony  of  experienced  men  supported  the  opinion  of  the 


The  black  windows  indicate  where  artificial  light  was  being  used  near  the  windows 
at  noon  on  a-  sunny  summer  day. 


CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  57 

Commission  that  real  estate  values  will  be  conserved  and  rendered 
far  more  stable  by  regulations  materially  limiting  the  height  of 
buildings,  providing  for  appropriate  yards  and  courts  and  re- 
stricting various  districts  against  the  intrusion  of  unsuitable  in- 
dustries. 

We  believe  that  the  state  has  adequate  power  to  adopt  rea- 
sonable regulations  of  this  kind.  Under  the  police  power  the 
state  may  adopt  any  reasonable  and  appropriate  regulation  for 
the  promotion  of  the  public  health,  safety  and  general  welfare. 
If  it  is  true,  as  we  believe,  that  the  adoption  of  a  reasonable 
control  over  building  development  is  essential  to  the  business 
interests  and  to  the  general  welfare  of  the  city,  we  are  con- 
vinced that  the  exercise  of  such  control  is  constitutional.  Other 
American  cities  have  been  using  the  police  power  to  regulate  the 
height  and  use  of  buildings.  These  regulations  have  in  the  main 
been  sustained  by  the  courts.  New  York  City  has  for  many 
years  restricted  the  height,  size  and  arrangement  of  tenement 
and  apartment  houses.  We  merely  propose,  for  the  most  part,  a 
more  general  application  and  extension  of  methods  of  control 
already  in  use  in  the  building  regulations  of  this  city. 

General  Restrictions  for  All  Buildings 
An  urgent  problem  is  the  establishment  of  general  regulations 
that  will  relieve  the  situation  in  lower  Manhattan.  An  occa- 
sional building  of  extreme  height  is  not  a  matter  of  great  public 
importance,  but  when  as  in  parts  of  the  office  and  financial  dis- 
trict such  buildings  are  crowded  together,  shutting  off  light  and 
air  and  congesting  the  streets,  the  evil  becomes  one  of  grave 
public  concern.  The  process  has  now  gone  far  enough  to  make 
it  plain  to  any  observer  that  if  permitted  to  continue  until  the 
district  is  uniformly  built  up  with  structures  of  the  present  ex- 
treme heights  the  situation  will  be  intolerable  and  injury  will 
be  done  both  to  public  and  private  interests. 

A  building  of  excessive  height  is  not  necessary  in  order  to 
realize  the  maximum  net  return  from  the  land.  The  tallest 
buildings  often  do  not  pay  the  best.  The  entrance  hall,  elevators, 
stairs  and  services  take  too  much  valuable  space.    Even  sup- 


58  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

posing  the  building  can  be  advantageously  rented  at  the  start, 
its  prosperity  will  probably  continue  only  so  long  as  it  is  not 
surrounded  by  buildings  of  similar  height.  When  high  build- 
ings are  crowded  together  the  result  is  mutually  disastrous  to  all 
owners.  Artificial  light  must  be  used  on  the  lower  floors  even 
on  the  brightest  day  in  summer.  The  darker  offices  usually  rent 
for  much  less  than  those  with  better  light.  When  such  conditions 
prevail  it  is  clear  that  a  reasonable  restriction  on  height  and  court 
area  if  applied  at  the  start  would  have  been  greatly  to  the  ad- 
vantage of  all  owners  concerned. 

Lack  of  sunlight  and  the  continuous  use  of  artificial  light 
undoubtedly  have  a  direct  relation  to  health,  eye  strain,  and  gen- 
eral physical  and  mental  efficiency.  Equally  injurious  is  the 
lack  of  adequate  ventilation  due  to  the  opening  of  work  rooms 
on  deep  and  narrow  courts  within  which  any  circulation  or  re- 
newal of  air  is  difficult.  The  health  and  comfort  of  the  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  office  employees  is  a  matter  of  great  public  im- 
portance. 

The  public  also  has  great  interest  in  the  effect  which  tall 
buildings  have  on  street  conditions.  The  streets  are  being  dark- 
ened and  congested.  Pedestrian  and  vehicular  traffic  is  becoming 
slow  and  difficult.  The  street  subsurface  is  becoming  over- 
crowded with  sewers,  pipes,  wires  and  rapid  transit  subways;  all 
occasioned  in  considerable  measure  by  the  extreme  heights  of 
buildings. 

In  recommending  restrictions  we  have  necessarily  been  lim- 
ited by  existing  conditions  as  to  improvements  and  land  values 
in  the  office  and  financial  district.  Were  it  not  for  the  existence 
of  many  tall  buildings,  other  and  more  nearly  ideal  restrictions 
could  be  imposed.  The  restrictions  recommended  are  designed 
to  secure  as  much  light  and  air,  relief  from  congestion  and  safety 
from  fire  as  is  practicable  under  existing  conditions  as  to  im- 
provements and  land  values.  In  place  of  proving  a  menace  to 
existing  values  they  will  tend  to  prevent  future  serious  injury 
to  such  values. 

The  restrictions  recommended  are  intended  to  apply,  until 
superseded  in  part  by  the  districting  plan  hereinafter  proposed, 


CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  59 

to  all  buildings  throughout  the  city  with  the  exception  of  tene- 
ment houses  and  with  the  exception  in  the  case  of  hotels,  lodging 
houses  and  theaters  of  the  requirements  in  regard  to  courts. 
Existing  requirements  as  to  height  and  courts  of  tenement 
houses  and  as  to  courts  of  hotels,  lodging  houses  and  theaters 
are  more  stringent  than  the  regulations  we  propose  for  general 
application. 

While  the  restrictions  recommended  are  necessarily  somewhat 
detailed  and  complicated  their  general  purport  may  be  briefly 
summarized.  They  limit  height  at  the  street  line  to  twice  the 
width  of  the  street,  but  such  limit  shall  in  no  case  be  less  than 
ioo  feet,  nor  more  than  300  feet.  After  reaching  such  limit  the 
building  may  be  carried  higher  by  setting  the  street  walls  above 
such  limit  back  one  foot  for  each  four  feet  of  increased  height. 
This  will  permit  the  building  of  mansards  or  of  vertical  walls 
if  such  walls  are  set  back  in  the  prescribed  ratio  of  one  to  four. 
No  cornice  may  project  into  the  street  more  than  five  per  cent 
of  the  street  width.  In  order  that  the  proposed  height  regula- 
tions may  be  effective  in  securing  a  maximum  of  light  in  the 
streets,  it  is  obvious  that  the  cornice  projection  must  be  limited. 
Ten  foot  cornices  on  both  sides  of  a  30  foot  street  cut  off  more 
light  than  many  feet  of  increased  building  height. 

Every  building  may  cover  the  entire  lot  up  to  the  top  of  the 
first  story.  Above  such  first  story  10  per  cent  of  every  interior 
lot  must  be  left  vacant  and  except  on  a  lot  facing  on  two  or  more 
streets  such  10  per  cent  shall  be  left  at  the  rear  of  the  lot.  This 
will  mean  as  a  rule  that  each  owner  of  an  interior  lot  will  leave 
a  10  foot  court  across  the  rear  of  his  lot.  This  10  foot  court 
joined  with  the  10  foot  court  on  the  adjoining  lot  will  make  a 
minimum  space  of  20  feet  back  to  back  between  buildings.  An 
open  court  of  this  kind  is  of  great  importance  to  adequate  ven- 
tilation.   No  rear  court  is  required  in  the  case  of  a  corner  lot. 

In  addition  to  rear  courts  or  the  required  10  per  cent  loss  of 
area  there  must  be  a  further  loss  of  area  covered  by  the  building 
equal  to  one  per  cent  of  the  lot  area  for  each  story  except  the  first 
story.  Loss  of  area  occasioned  by  set-backs  of  the  front  walls 
is  included  in  this  one  per  cent  per  floor  required  loss.    As  the 


60  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

required  set-back  of  front  walls  on  a  lot  100  feet  deep  means  a 
loss  of  about  three  per  cent  per  lloor,  it  is  only  in  the  case  of 
buildings  of  unusual  shapes  that  the  one  per  cent  requirement 
would  have  any  practical  effect  after  reaching  the  height  where 
the  required  set-back  of  street  walls  begins.  This  requirement  is 
supplemented  by  prescribing  a  minimum  dimension  proportion- 
ate to  height  for  main  courts  other  than  the  10  per  cent  rear  court. 
The  least  dimension  of  such  courts  must  be  not  less  than  six 
feet  and  not  less  than  the  number  of  feet  equal  to  i  J4  times  the 
number  of  stories  above  the  first  story.  At  the  twenty-first  story 
the  court  would  have  to  be  at  least  25  feet  in  each  dimension. 
Such  courts  are  included  as  a  part  of  the  one  per  cent  per  floor 
required  loss  of  area.  These  requirements  apply  to  a  corner  lot 
as  well  as  to  an  interior  lot. 

Buildings  erected  on  lots  of  specified  shapes  and  sizes  and  for 
which  it  has  seemed  that  adequate  light  and  air  can  be  secured 
from  the  streets,  are  exempted  from  the  requirement  as  to  the 
loss  in  area  of  one  per  cent  per  story,  and  from  all  requirements 
as  to  courts. 

As  an  exception  to  all  the  above  height  and  court  regulations 
a  tower  may  be  erected  to  any  height,  provided  it  does  not  cover 
more  than  25  per  cent  of  the  lot,  and  provided  every  part  of  the 
tower  is  kept  at  least  20  feet  from  the  lot  and  street  lines.  In  the 
case  of  a  building  facing  a  public  park  or  water  front,  however, 
such  tower  may  be  placed  at  the  building  line.  Towers  of  this 
kind  will  not  interfere  with  light  and  air,  and  while  not  attrac- 
tive investments,  will  probably  continue  to  be  built  as  in  the  past 
from  motives  other  than  for  rental  return. 

For  plots  of  normal  size,  it  is  estimated  that  buildings  will 
reach  their  economic  height  when  through  the  application  of  the 
court  and  set-back  regulations  the  area  of  the  building  has  been 
reduced  to  about  60  per  cent  of  the  area  of  the  plot.  This  will 
mean  that  for  buildings  on  an  interior  plot  on  a  sixty  foot  street, 
the  economic  height  limit  will  be  about  14  to  17  stories.  On  a 
corner  plot  on  a  100  foot  street,  the  economic  height  limit  will 
be  probably  16  to  20  stories. 


DIAGRAM  II 


1 


z 

f 

5  5 


r 

5?  o 


»— < 
O 

> 

r 

W 

c 

6 

Z 


5  ro 
g  in 


3  > 

»— *  w 

O  P! 

«  » 

r  8 

0  c« 

?  a 

-J 


N 

o 


o  i. 


O 
u  > 
n>         °  F 

■6       *  a 

f  sl 

0  i   i  n  g 

S  -  S  I  w 

888  8 


r 


CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  6l 

The  proposed  regulations  are  in  full  as  follows : 
Street  walls 

i  A.  Except  as  hereinafter  provided  when  the  street  walls  of 
any  building  reach  a  height  equal  to  twice  the  width  of  the  street, 
they  shall  be  set  back  from  the  street  in  the  ratio  of  one  foot  hori- 
zontally for  each  four  feet  vertically,  but  the  street  walls  of  a 
building  facing  on  any  street,  public  place,  park,  or  body  of  water, 
more  than  150  feet  wide,  including  an  intervening  street  if  any, 
must  begin  their  set-backs  not  over  300  feet  above  the  curb,  except 
as  hereinafter  provided  for  towers. 

1  B.  Street  walls  if  erected  on  the  building  line  may  reach 
the  height  of  100  feet  on  a  street  less  than  50  feet  wide  before  the 
set-back  as  stated  above  must  begin. 

1  C.  When  the  width  of  a  street  varies  in  a  given  block  the 
width  of  the  street  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  height  of  the 
street  walls  in  said  block  shall  be  taken  to  mean  the  average  width 
of  said  street  in  said  block. 

2.  When  street  walls  are  erected  inside  the  building  line  so 
that  a  space  intervenes  between  the  street  and  the  wall,  the  set- 
back shall  begin  where  such  wall  intersects  the  set-back  plane  as 
determined  by  the  set-backs  in  paragraphs  1  A  and  1  B  and  above 
that  point  the  wall  shall  set  back  in  the  same  manner  as  if  the  wall 
were  placed  on  the  building  line. 

3.  Where  a  single  building  is  erected  upon  a  corner  lot  facing 
upon  streets  of  different  widths,  the  street  of  greatest  width  may 
be  used  to  determine  the  height  at  which  the  set-back  shall  begin. 
The  mean  level  of  the  curb  in  such  street  of  greatest  width  shall 
be  the  point  from  which  such  height  shall  be  measured. 

4.  Where  a  single  building  not  on  a  corner  lot  abuts  upon 
streets  of  different  widths  the  height  and  set-backs  of  each  street 
wall  shall  be  determined  by  the  width  of  the  street  on  which  it 
abuts. 

5.  No  cornice  shall  project  more  than  five  per  cent  of  the 
width  of  the  street  beyond  the  building  line  or  the  plane  determined 
by  the  required  set-backs  in  1  A  and  1  B. 

Courts 

6.  Every  building  may  cover  the  entire  area  of  the  lot  up  to 
and  including  the  tier  of  beams  forming  the  ceiling  of  the  first 
story  which  shall  be  that  story  the  floor  of  which  shall  be  not  more 


62 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


than  seven  feet  above  the  curb  level  at  the  highest  point  of  any 
street  on  which  the  building  abuts. 

7.  Except  as  hereinafter  provided  on  all  lots  upon  which 
buildings  shall  be  erected,  provision  for  light  and  air  shall  be  made 
by  leaving  yards  or  uncovered  courts  above  the  second  story  floor 
level  whose  least  dimension  shall  be  not  less  than  six  feet. 

8.  At  any  story  of  a  building  the  least  dimension  of  any  court, 
measured  to  an  opposite  wall  of  the  same  building  or  to  a  lot  line, 
shall  equal  in  feet  at  least  1%  times  the  number  of  stories  from  the 
second  floor  to  and  including  said  story.  This  provision  need  not 
apply  to  a  rear  yard  as  required  under  paragraph  12. 

9.  In  a  court  of  irregular  shape  the  least  dimension  shall  be 
taken  to  mean  the  least  distance  between  walls  or  between  any 
wall  and  a  lot  line  measured  on  a  line  erected  perpendicular  to  the 
center  of  any  side  of  said  court. 

10.  The  provisions  of  paragraphs  7,  8  and  9  need  not  apply  to 
a  court  upon  which  no  office  or  work  room  solely  depends  for  ac- 
cess to  outside  light  and  air. 

11.  In  every  building  there  shall  be  a  loss  in  area  for  each  story 
above  the  second  story  floor  level  of  at  least  one  per  cent  of  the  lot 
area,  in  addition  to  other  requirements  hereinafter  contained. 

12.  Except  as  provided  in  paragraphs  13  A  and  13  B  there  shall 
be  an  uncovered  space  above  the  second  story  floor  level  between 
the  rear  line  of  every  building  and  the  rear  line  of  the  lot,  which 
shall  contain  not  less  than  10  per  cent  of  the  area  of  the  lot  and  the 
least  dimension  of  which  shall  be  not  less  than  10  per  cent  of  the 
depth  of  the  lot.  When  the  front  and  rear  lines  of  the  lot  are  not 
parallel,  the  depth  of  the  lot  shall  be  taken  to  mean  the  average 
depth. 

13  A.  The  requirements  of  paragraph  12  shall  not  apply  to  a 
building  erected  on  a  lot  at  the  corner  of  two  or  more  streets. 

13  B.  When  a  building  is  erected  upon  a  lot  fronting  upon 
two  or  more  streets  but  not  on  a  corner,  there  shall  be  an  uncovered 
space  above  the  second  story  floor  level  equal  in  area  to  10  per  cent 
of  the  area  of  the  lot. 

14.  No  courts  shall  be  required  in  a  building  erected  on  a  three- 
sided  lot  in  which  three  sides  face  upon  public  streets  and  in  which 
the  length  of  the  shortest  side  docs  not  exceed  100  feet. 

15.  No  courts  shall  be  required  in  a  building  erected  upon  a 
three  sided  lot  in  which  only  two  sides  face  upon  public  streets  and 
in  which  the  length  of  the  third  side  does  not  exceed  100  feet. 


DIAGRAM  III 


Calculations 
Lot  Area  .  100  «  200 
107;  or  coooo 
If.   •  • 

LOSS  OF  AREA    2HP  P*LOOR 
.(l00FT)91B 
-(200-}lT!!!  - 
-      -      -(50O-)25»  • 
Tower  -  25  %  or-  20OOO 
>(<SO'«  44-')+(50' 


Calculations  (on™™) 

Co-jrtArea  at9E  Stoky  ■  2000  +  Sx  200  =  3SOO  so  TT 
3600  59.FT.  =  2coi/rt3  72'*25'.  Above  The  N  inth  St 
Th.s  Court  Area  Kehajns  Constant  As  l/C Losses  Are  On  Faca 

2oI5storv..  REourftcp  Loss  of  Area  (toX*'3^55800  3»  ' 
F>£At>E  Setback  Reduction  .  (l2't3l')>100'  =4500  . 
CouRrAREA=3600s«.rT.       Total  L033     .7300  .. 

20th  St-orv  can  cover  only   G0.5for  THE  LOT. 


Li 


9C!  Floor  Flan 


I7IH  FLoor  Plan 


25ra  Floor  Plan 


Tyfical  Building; 
on  Interior  Lot 
Running;   through  trom  one 
to  another 


CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS 


63 


16.  No  courts  shall  be  required  in  a  building  erected  upon  a 
rectangular  or  trapezoidal  lot  in  which  three  or  more  sides  face 
upon  public  streets,  and  in  which  the  greatest  width  of  the  lot  from 
street  to  street  measured  in  a  line  at  right  angles  to  either  street 
does  not  exceed  ninety  feet. 

Towers 

17.  It  is  further  provided,  that,  in  addition  to  a  building  erected 
as  hereinbefore  provided,  a  structure  to  be  called  a  "  tower n 
may  extend  without  limit  above  such  building  and  without  loss  of 
area,  but  such  tower  shall  not  occupy  an  area  exceeding  25  per  cent 
of  the  area  of  the  lot,  and  no  part  of  such  tower  shall  approach 
nearer  than  20  feet  to  any  lot  or  street  line,  except,  however,  that 
such  tower  may  be  built  on  that  building  line  of  a  building  facing 
on  a  public  square,  a  public  park,  or  the  water  front,  with  or  with- 
out an  intervening  street  as  hereinbefore  defined  in  paragraph  1  A. 

Exceptions 

18.  The  above  regulations  do  not  apply  to  tenement  houses  and 
do  not  apply  to  hotels,  lodging  houses  or  theaters  in  so  far  as  sec- 
tions 6-16  in  relation  to  courts  are  concerned  nor  do  they  apply  to 
church  spires,  belfries  or  chimneys  for  power  and  manufacturing 
plants.  The  existing  laws  and  ordinances  in  relation  to  tenement 
houses  and  hotels,  lodging  houses  and  theaters  will  be  continued 
in  force. 

Application  to  Certain  Well  Known  Office  Buildings 

In  the  following  illustrations  the  number  of  the  story  at  which 
the  set-back  would  begin  refers  to  the  building  as  actually  con- 
structed or  to  the  approved  plans  of  a  building  under  construc- 
tion. 

Fifth  Avenue  building.    (Sec  Diagram  4) 

This  structure  is  14  stories  high,  with  a  two-story  parapet, 
or  196  feet  over  all.  Under  the  proposed  regulation  it  could 
go  up  twenty-five  stories,  or  300  feet,  before  it  would  have, 
to  set  back  from  the  street  front,  and  might  go  up  five  stories,  or 
60  feet,  more  in  a  mansard.  The  required  court  under  the  pro- 
posed regulation  would  be  18  feet  narrower  all  of  the  way 


64  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

up  than  the  existing  court,  and  at  the  top,  where  the  existing 
court  is  60  feet  wide,  it  would  need  to  be  only  42  feet  wide. 

Woolworth  building.     (See  Diagram  5) 

This  building  is  27  stories,  or  360  feet  high,  before  it  begins 
to  set  back  from  the  street.  Under  the  proposed  regulation,  if 
this  building  were  opposite  the  City  Hall  Park,  it  would  have  to 
begin  to  set  back  at  the  top  of  the  23d  story  level,  or  300  feet 
up,  and  could  have  three  roof  stories.  From  the  23d  story  up 
it  could  have  a  tower,  100  feet  by  77  feet.  The  existing  tower 
is  84  feet  by  84  feet.  The  existing  court  is  36  feet  wide  all  the 
way  up  to  the  28th  story.  Under  the  proposed  regulation,  the 
main  building  would  probably  stop  at  the  23d  story,  and  the 
court  for  the  same  depth  would  have  to  be  68  feet  wide  at  that 
level. 

Singer  building 

This  building,  without  the  tower,  is  only  15  stories,  or  200 
feet  high,  and  12  stories  high  before  it  begins  to  set  back  from 
the  street.  Under  the  proposed  regulation  the  building  would 
begin  to  set  back  at  the  nth  story,  or  140  feet  up,  and  continue 
to  a  height  of  16  stories,  above  which  level  there  might  be  a  tower 
90  feet  by  70  feet.  The  existing  tower  is  66  feet  by  55  feet. 
As  to  the  courts,  at  the  eighth  story  level  only  1692  square  feet 
would  be  required,  and  at  the  15th  story  level  3666  square  feet 
would  be  required.  Six  thousand  four  hundred  and  thirty-five 
square  feet  is  the  area  given  up  in  the  existing  courts. 

New  Equitable  building.    (See  Diagram  6) 

On  the  street  the  proposed  building  will  be  36  stories,  or  496 
feet  high,  with  exterior  courts  on  Broadway  and  Nassau  Street, 
32  feet  wide  and  94  feet  deep.  Under  the  proposed  regulation 
the  building  might  go  up  nine  stories  of  the  unusual  height  of 
the  proposed  stories  before  it  would  begin  to  set  back,  and  it 
would  be  impracticable  to  carry  it  above  a  height  of  18  stories. 
The  courts  would  remain  the  same  as  the  present  courts  up  to 
the  14th  story,  but  at  the  18th  story  they  would  be  12  feet  wider. 
Above  the  18th  story  there  could  be  a  tower  1 15  by  100  feet. 


CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  65 

United  States  Realty  building.    (See  Diagram  7) 

This  building  is  21  stories,  or  283  feet  high.  Under  the  pro- 
posed regulation  it  might  go  up  12  stories,  or  160  feet,  before 
it  began  to  set  back,  and  the  probable  height  under  the  proposed 
law  would  be  15  stories,  or  203  feet.  There  need  be  no  courts 
in  the  building. 

Whitehall  building.     (See  Diagram  8) 

This  building  is  20  stories,  or  250  feet  high,  in  one  part,  and 
32  stories,  or  405  feet  high,  in  another  part.  Under  the  proposed 
regulation,  as  this  building  faces  on  the  water  front  and  on  a 
public  park,  it  could  go  up  24  stories,  or  300  feet,  before  it  would 
have  to  set  back,  and  might  reach  a  height  of  29  stories,  or  360 
feet.  A  tower  on  the  corner  100  by  130  feet  would  be  quite 
feasible.  At  the  29th  story,  if  the  building  covered  the  whole 
lot,  a  court  of  the  same  depth  as  the  existing  court  would  have 
to  be  64  feet  wide.  At  the  24th  floor  the  building  could  occupy 
about  76  per  cent  of  the  present  lot  area. 

Municipal  building.     (See  Diagram  9) 

This  building  is  24  stories,  or  320  feet  high.  Under  the  pro- 
posed regulation  the  building,  as  it  faces  a  public  square,  could  be 
22  stories,  or  300  feet  high,  before  it  would  have  to  set  back,  and 
could  be  carried  up  to  the  30th  story,  or  408  feet  high.  There 
could  be  a  tower  on  the  building  138  by  no  feet.  At  the  24th 
floor  level  a  court,  as  required  under  the  proposed  regulation, 
would  be  very  nearly  the  same  size  as  the  existing  court. 

Flat  Iron  building.     (See  Diagram  10) 

This  building  is  20  stories,  or  282  feet  high.  Under  the  pro- 
posed regulation  it  could  be  18  stories,  or  250  feet  high,  before 
it  would  have  to  set  back  from  the  street,  and  would  reach  an  ulti- 
mate height  equal  to  one  story  more  than  the  present  building,  or 
300  feet.    There  need  be  no  courts. 

Application  to  Certain  Well  Known  Hotels 
Knickerbocker  Hotel.     (See  Diagram  n) 

This  hotel  is  15  stories,  or  185  feet  high,  with  only  12  stories 
or  150  feet  in  height,  on  the  street  front.    According  to  the  pro- 


66 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


posed  regulation  it  might  be  16  stories,  or  200  feet  high,  before 
set-backs  would  be  required,  with  a  possible  ultimate  height  of 
25  stories,  or  300  feet. 

Plaza  Hotel 

The  height  of  this  building  is  19  stories,  or  270  feet,  or  16 
stories,  or  235  feet,  before  it  begins  to  set  back  from  the  street. 
Under  the  proposed  regulation,  as  the  building  faces  on  a  public 
square  and  park,  it  might  go  to  the  height  of  22  stories,  or  300 
feet,  before  set-backs  would  be  required,  and  a  tower  on  the 
corner  98  by  98  feet  could  go  to  any  height. 

Biltmore  Hotel.    (See  Diagram  12) 

The  height  of  the  Biltmore  Hotel  is  25  stories,  or  305  feet. 
Under  the  proposed  regulation  the  set-backs  would  begin  on  the 
street  fronts  at  the  14th  floor  level,  or  160  feet  up.  .The  hotel 
might  go  to  the  same  height  as  the  existing  building,  but  it  would 
probably  be  unprofitable  to  carry  it  above  19  or  20  stories;  or  240 
feet. 

Districting 

Height  regulation  districts 

The  Commission  believes  that  any  complete  system  of  height 
and  court  restriction  necessitates  the  application  of  different  reg- 
ulations to  different  parts  of  the  city.  The  city  should  be  divided 
into  districts  and  the  restrictions  for  each  district  worked  out 
with  reference  to  the  peculiar  needs  and  requirements  of  that 
particular  district.  The  blanket  restrictions  which  we  have  rec- 
ommended for  immediate  adoption,  have  as  a  matter  of  fact 
been  devised  with  reference  to  the  needs  of  the  downtown  office 
and  financial  district — the  area  of  maximum  congestion.  They 
have  been  worked  out  with  a  view  to  securing  as  much  light,  air, 
relief  from  congestion,  and  safety  from  fire  as  is  consistent  with 
a  proper  regard  for  the  business  requirements  and  existing  land 
values  in  this  area  of  maximum  congestion.  They  are  so  liberal 
as  to  be  of  practically  no  force  in  controlling  actual  building  de- 
velopment except  in  very  limited  areas  throughout  the  entire 
city.   We  believe  that  the  needs  of  each  district  should  be  studied 


CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  67 

in  the  same  way  that  we  have  studied  the  central  office  and 
financial  district  and  restrictions  worked  out  that  will  best  serve 
the  peculiar  needs  of  each  district. 

Every  city  becomes  divided  into  more  or  less  clearly  defined 
districts  of  different  occupation,  use  and  type  of  building  con- 
struction. We  have  the  central  office  and  financial  district,  loft 
districts,  water  front  and  industrial  districts,  retail  business  dis- 
tricts, apartment  house  and  hotel  districts,  tenement  house  dis- 
tricts, private  dwelling  districts.  The  character  of  building  ap- 
propriate for  each  district  is  of  course  dependent  on  the  char- 
acter of  occupation  and  use  in  that  particular  district.  A  com- 
paratively high  degree  of  concentration  is  believed  to  be  im- 
portant for  the  facilitation  of  business  in  the  office  and  financial 
district.  Certain  trades  and  industries  require  structures  of  un- 
usual size  or  shape.  The  demand  for  housing  varies  with  the 
differing  tastes  and  necessities  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city. 
There  is  a  demand  for  hotels  and  apartment  houses  as  well  as 
for  single  family  dwellings.  Moreover,  advantage  of  location 
and  the  resulting  enormous  difference  in  land  values  tend 
strongly  toward  differentiation  in  the  character  and  intensity  of 
use  and  this  and  other  social  and  economic  factors  tend  toward 
a  natural  segregation  of  buildings  according  to  type  and  use. 
The  city  is  divided  into  building  districts.  We  believe  that  these 
natural  districts  must  be  recognized  in  any  complete  and  gen- 
erally effective  system  of  building  restriction. 

Height  and  court  restrictions  should  be  framed  with  a  view 
to  securing  to  each  district  as  much  light,  air,  relief  from  con- 
gestion and  safety  from  fire  as  is  consistent  with  a  proper  re- 
gard for  the  most  beneficial  use  of  the  land  and  as  is  practicable 
under  existing  conditions  as  to  improvements  and  land  values. 
The  restrictions  should  be  based  on  the  theory  that  assuming 
that  the  entire  district  should  be  built  up  uniformly  with  build- 
ings of  the  maximum  height  and  extent  allowed,  the  provision 
for  light  and  air  would  be  adequate,  and  the  district  as  a  whole 
would  be  appropriately  improved.  The  varying  district  restric- 
tions should  also  have  in  view  the  safeguarding  of  existing  and 
future  investments  and  the  encouragement  of  an  appropriate  and 


68 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


orderly  building  development,  by  conserving  the  existing  type 
and  character  of  the  district  and  by  preventing  the  taking  from 
an  existing  structure  of  its  minimum  allotment  of  light  and  air. 

While  we  know  of  no  immediate  practicable  remedy  for  the 
existing  congestion  of  population  on  the  lower  East  Side,  we  be- 
lieve that  by  appropriate  restrictions  varying  with  the  district, 
we  can  prevent  the  repetition  of  these  conditions  in  other  parts 
of  the  city.  A  few  comparatively  small  districts  of  the  city  are 
already  spoiled,  but  most  of  the  area  of  the  city  is  still  in  condi- 
tion to  be  greatly  helped  by  appropriate  regulations. 

The  chief  American  examples  of  districting  as  applied  to  the 
height  of  buildings  are  furnished  by  Boston,  Baltimore,  Indian- 
apolis and  Washington.  In  Baltimore  and  Indianapolis  special 
restrictions  have  been  applied  to  a  single  very  limited  area. 
In  Boston  and  Washington,  on  the  other  hand,  the  regulations 
are  comprehensive  and  thoroughgoing.  The  Baltimore  regula- 
tions have  been  sustained  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Maryland 
and  those  of  Boston  have  been  sustained  both  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Massachusetts  and  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States. 

Wre  recommend  that  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportion- 
ment be  empowered  by  the  state  legislature  to  district  the  city 
for  the  purposes  of  building  height  and  court  area  restrictions 
and  to  apply  to  buildings  hereafter  constructed  different  restric- 
tions in  different  districts.  We  recommend  that  the  Board  of 
Estimate  and  Apportionment,  upon  receiving  such  legislative 
authorization,  appoint  a  commission,  which  commission  after 
hearings  shall  recommend  to  the  Board  the  precise  boundaries 
of  the  several  districts,  and  the  regulations  to  be  applied  in  each 
such  district. 

Such  restrictions  should  secure  safety  from  fire,  promote 
public  health  and  convenience  and  provide  adequate  light,  air 
and  access.  The  Board  should  pay  reasonable  regard  to  the 
character  of  the  buildings  existing  in  each  district,  the  present 
use  of  the  land  and  its  value  based  on  such  present  or  presently 
expected  use.  Restrictions  thus  imposed  would  promote  the  most 
desirable  use  of  the  land  of  each  district  and  would  conserve  the 


Base  map  reproduced  by  courtesy  of  Ohman  Map  Company. 


MAP   XVI— PREVAILING   PERCENTAGES   OF   LOT   AREA   COVERED  BY 
BUILDING  IN  BROOKLYN. 

Numerals  indicate  percentage  covered. 


CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  69 

value  of  buildings  and  enhance  die  value  of  land  throughout  the 
city. 

The  Commission  submits  the  draft  of  an  amendment  to  the 
Charter,  to  be  known  as  section  242-3.,  to  carry  out  these  recom- 
mendations. 

While  the  Commission  does  not  specify  the  exact  number  of 
districts  to  be  created,  or  the  precise  restrictions  as  to  height 
and  open  spaces  to  be  imposed  in  each,  this  question  has  been 
considered  particularly  with  reference  to  height  regulations,  and 
certain  tentative  conclusions  are  presented  merely  by  way  of 
suggestion  and  illustration.  We  suggest  that  the  following  eight 
classes  of  districts  should  be  provided  for : 

A  districts: 

General  restrictions  recommended  for  immediate  adoption, 
regulating  heights  of  all  buildings. 

B  districts: 

Twice  the  street  width,  and  not  over  150  feet.  Set-back  one 
foot  horizontally  for  each  two  feet  vertically. 

C  districts: 

Twice  the  street  width,  and  not  over  125  feet.  Set-back  same 
as  B. 

D  districts: 

One  and  one-half  times  the  street  width,  and  not  over  125 
feet.    Set-back  one  foot  horizontally  for  each  ij4  feet  vertically. 

E  districts: 

One  and  one-half  times  the  street  width,  and  not  over  90 
feet.    Set-back  same  as  D. 

F  districts: 

Once  the  street  width  and  not  over  80  feet.  Set-back  one 
foot  horizontally  for  each  one  foot  vertically. 

G  districts:    Not  over  50  feet.    Set-back  same  as  F. 


H  districts:    Not  over  36  feet.    Set-back  same  as  F. 


/O  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

W  hen  the  street  front  of  any  building  shall  have  reached 
the  height  limitation,  the  building  may  still  be  erected  to  a 
further  height  at  a  point  set  back  from  the  street  to  the  distance 
provided  by  the  set-back  regulations.  The  set-back  regulations 
are  to  be  understood  to  permit  vertical  walls  or  pitched  roofs  or 
other  structures,  provided  only  no  part  of  such  structure  rising- 
above  the  height  limited  at  the  front  wall  shall  extend  above  the 
limit  allowed  by  the  particular  set-back  provision.  Where  the 
height  limit  is  the  street  width  or  a  multiple  thereof  the  set-back 
provision  is  designed  to  preserve  a  certain  angle  of  light  deter- 
mined for  the  various  classes  of  districts  as  herein  set  forth. 

The  above  eight  classes  of  districts  were  worked  out  after  a 
careful  study  of  land  values  and  improvements  throughout  the 
city.  It  seemed  that  every  portion  of  the  city  could  be  appropri- 
ately placed  in  some  one  of  '1^se  eight  classes  without  sacrificing 
existing  values. 

Class  A  restrictions  are  the  blanket  regulations  recommended 
for  immediate  adoption,  and  under  the  districting  plan  should  be 
confined  to  the  area  or  areas  of  maximum  business  congestion, 
namely,  much  of  the  lower  end  of  Manhattan  below  Park  Place, 
Broadway  to  59  '*  Street,  and  certain  limited  areas  south  of  426. 
Street. 

Class  B  restrictions  limiting  height  at  building  line  to  twice 
the  street  width,  and  not  over  150  feet;  Class  C  limiting  height 
to  twice  street  width,  and  not  over  125  feet;  Class  D  limiting 
height  to  il/>  times  street  width,  and  not  over  125  feet,  and  Class 
E  limiting  height  to  V/2  times  street  width,  and  not  over  90  feet, 
are  designed  to  cover  most  business  and  industrial  districts,  and 
also  high  class  hotel  and  apartment  house  districts.  Most  of 
Manhattan,  small  portions  of  Brooklyn,  Queens  and  The  Bronx 
and  no  part  of  Richmond  should  be  included  as  B,  C,  D  and  E 
districts. 

Class  F  restrictions  limit  height  to  the  width  of  the  street 
and  not  over  80  feet.  This  permits  the  erection  of  a  five-story 
tenement  or  apartment  house  on  a  60-foot  street  and  a  six-story 
tenement  or  apartment  on  wider  streets.  Class  G  restrictions 
limit  height  at  building  line  to  50  feet.    This  permits  the  erection 


MAP  XVII — PREVAILING  LAND   VALUES  IN  BROOKLYN. 
Numerals  indicate  prevailing  assessed  value  per  front  foot  for  inside  lots. 


CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  Jl 

of  a  four-story  tenement  or  apartment  house.  It  seems  that  a 
very  small  portion  of  Richmond  and  Manhattan  and  very  large 
portions  of  Brooklyn,  Queens  and  The  Bronx  should  be  included 
as  F  and  G  districts. 

Class  H  restrictions  limit  height  at  building  line  to  36  feet. 
This  will  mean  for  the  most  part  the  building  of  one  and  two 
family  houses,  and  should  be  applied  to  districts  where  this 
type  of  construction  is  most  appropriate.  It  seems  that  almost 
all  of  Richmond,  most  of  Queens  and  large  areas  in  Brooklyn 
and  The  Bronx  can  appropriately  be  included  as  H  districts. 

It  is  understood  that  a  district  may  be  of  any  required  size 
or  shape.  Some  districts  may  consist  of  a  single  street  or  portion 
of  a  street.  When,  for  example,  traffic  streets  run  through  areas 
for  which  the  36-foot  limit  is  generally  appropriate,  such  traffic 
streets  may  be  exempted  by  being  included  in  Class  G  or  F,  where 
the  limit  is  50  and  80  feet. 

In  the  above  illustrations  and  suggestions  in  regard  to  dis- 
tricting the  Commission  has  made  no  reference  to  restrictions  as 
to  courts  and  yards,  save  those  contained  in  the  recommendations 
for  Class  A,  which  would  prevail  for  the  entire  city  unless 
superseded.  This  is  a  difficult  subject,  and  in  working  it  out  it 
is  possible  that  it  would  be  desirable  to  increase  the  number  of 
classes  of  districts.  It  may  for  example  be  desirable  to  divide 
Class  H  where  the  36-foot  height  limit  obtains  into  two  or  more 
classes  with  different  limitations  as  to  courts  and  yards.  Pro- 
vision for  adequate  courts  and  yards  is  of  the  utmost  importance 
in  carrying  out  a  well  considered  plan  of  building  development. 

Industrial  districts  and  residential  districts 

It  is  clear,  however,  that  any  system  of  building  control  would 
be  defective  unless  in  addition  to  regulation  of  height,  yards  and 
courts,  regulations  be  imposed  on  the  location  of  industries  and  of 
buildings  designed  for  certain  uses.  Height  limitations  alone  will 
not  prevent  deterioration  of  sections  owing  to  the  invasion  of 
inappropriate  industries  or  structures.  Real  estate  owners  and 
business  men  of  New  York  City  have  suffered  enormous  losses 
owing  to  a  failure  to  protect  certain  districts  from  encroachment 


72  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

by  factories.  Witness  the  decline  in  business  and  property  values 
in  lower  Fifth  Avenue.  This  is  an  example  of  what  is  occurring 
on  a  smaller  scale  in  many  parts  of  the  city.  Again  take  the  case 
of  the  man  who  builds  a  home  in  a  district  which  at  the  time 
seems  peculiarly  suited  for  single  family  dwellings.  In  a  few 
years  the  value  of  his  property  may  be  largely  destroyed  by  the 
erection  of  apartment  houses,  shutting  off  light  and  air  and  com- 
pletely changing  the  character  of  the  neighborhood.  When  single 
family  dwellings,  apartment  houses,  stores  and  factories  are 
thrown  together  indiscriminately,  the  health  and  comfort  of  home 
life  are  destroyed  and  property  and  rental  values  are  reduced. 

As  a  general  rule  a  building  is  appropriately  located  when  it 
is  in  a  section  surrounded  by  buildings  of  similar  type  and  use. 
Anything  that  will  tend  to  preserve  the  character  of  a  particular 
section  for  a  reasonable  period  of  years  will  tend  to  bring  about 
the  uniform  improvement  of  that  section.  Appropriate  improve- 
ment is  encouraged  by  the  greater  safety  of  investment,  and  at 
the  same  time  there  is  a  great  reduction  in  the  social  loss  due 
to  the  enormous  cost  of  building  reconstruction  and  the  enormous 
decline  in  the  rental  value  of  the  buildings  that  have  ceased  to  be 
appropriately  located. 

We  believe  that  factories  should  be  excluded  from  the  neigh- 
borhood of  upper  Fifth  Avenue.  The  preservation  of  that 
thoroughfare  as  a  high-class  shopping  center  is  essential  to  the 
business  prosperity  of  the  entire  city.  We  believe,  to  the  extent 
that  existing  conditions  will  permit,  factories  and  other  industries 
should  not  be  permitted  to  enter  certain  residence  sections.  We 
believe  that  in  certain  districts  a  man  should  be  able  to  build  a 
home  in  a  neighborhood  of  his  choice  without  the  hazard  that 
in  a  few  years  through  the  building  of  apartments  or  other 
structures  the  location  will  become  undesirable  for  a  home  of 
the  character  he  has  built,  and  his  property  will  be  seriously 
depreciated.  Reasonable  restrictions  will  tend  to  stabilize  existing 
districts. 

A  number  of  American  cities,  including  Baltimore,  Mil- 
waukee, Minneapolis  and  Los  Angeles,  have  in  recent  years 
established  residential  and  industrial  districts.    Los  Angeles  has 


Base  map  reproduced  by  courtesy  of  Ohman  Map  Company. 


MAP  XVIII— FIRE  LIMITS  IN  THE  BRONX. 

Black  line  indicates  fire  limits. 
Black  shading  denotes  brick  buildings  outside  the  fire  limits. 


CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  73 

enacted  drastic  ordinances  of  this  character,  which  have  been 
sustained  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  California.  A  recent  Massa- 
chusetts law  permits  cities  and  towns  to  regulate  the  location  and 
use  of  buildings.  The  New  York  legislature  at  its  19 13  session 
authorized  the  creation  in  all  cities  of  the  second  class  of  resi- 
dence districts  within  which  no  building  other  than  a  single  family 
or  a  two  family  dwelling  may  be  erected. 

We  recommend  that  an  act  be  passed  by  the  state  legislature 
authorizing  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  to  regulate 
the  location  of  industries  and  the  location  of  buildings  designed 
for  specified  uses,  and  to  establish  districts  for  this  purpose.  In 
establishing  districts  and  framing  regulations  reasonable  consid- 
eration should  be  given  to  the  character  of  the  district,  its  peculiar 
suitability  for  particular  uses,  the  conservation  of  property  values 
and  the  direction  of  building  development  in  accord  with  a  well 
considered  plan. 

The  Commission  submits  the  draft  of  an  amendment  to  the 
Charter,  to  be  known  as  section  242-b,  to  carry  out  the  above 
recommendations. 

With  the  districting  of  the  city  for  purposes  of  height  and 
court  regulation  the  necessity  of  adopting  regulations  as  to 
the  location  of  industries  and  of  buildings  designed  for  specified 
uses  will  to  a  considerable  extent  disappear.  The  36-foot  height 
limit  (Class  H)  will  serve  automatically  to  prevent  the  entrance 
of  apartment  houses  and  certain  kinds  of  industry.  The  height 
limits  suggested  for  other  districts  will  also  tend  toward  a  segre- 
gation of  buildings  according  to  type  and  use.  Nevertheless  it 
will  often  be  necessary  to  supplement  the  height  and  court  restric- 
tions by  direct  restrictions  on  the  location  of  industries  and  of 
buildings  designed  for  specified  uses.  For  this  purpose  industrial 
districts  and  residential  districts  should  be  created,  with  appro- 
priate restrictions  on  the  type  and  use  of  buildings  that  may  be 
erected  therein. 


74 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Fifth  Avenue 

The  Fifth  Avenue  problem  will  be  largely  solved  through  the 
application  of  the  recommendations  in  regard  to  districting.  We 
recommend  that  Fifth  Avenue  and  adjacent  territory  be  sub- 
jected to  Class  D  restrictions,  i.  c,  V/2  times  the  street  width, 
but  not  over  125  feet.  This  will  limit  the  height  of  build- 
ings at  the  street  line  to  125  feet  on  Fifth  Avenue  and  to  90 
feet  on  the  60-foot  cross  streets.  The  Fifth  Avenue  section 
will  thereby  be  subjected  to  the  same  restrictions  as  to  height  that 
the  Commission  has  had  in  mind  as  appropriate  for  a  very  large 
portion  of  Manhattan.  In  addition,  under  the  system  recom- 
mended for  the  regulation  of  the  location  of  industries,  factories 
should  be  excluded  from  the  upper  Fifth  Avenue  section.  This 
together  with  the  restriction  on  height  will  serve,  we  believe,  to 
preserve  Fifth  Avenue  as  a  most  valuable  asset  to  the  business 
prosperity  of  the  city. 

Factories 

We  have  recommended  that  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Ap- 
portionment be  empowered  to  regulate  the  location  of  industries 
and  to  establish  districts  therefor.  Under  such  regulations  there 
will  be  a  partial  segregation  of  industries.  Certain  kinds  of  in- 
dustry will  not  be  permitted  to  enter  certain  business  and  resi- 
dential districts.  It  is  highly  important  that  steps  be  taken  to 
prevent  for  the  future  the  serious  losses  that  have  resulted  to 
certain  sections  from  the  invasion  of  inappropriate  industries. 

We  have  had  much  testimony  as  to  the  depreciation  of  the 
value  of  land  and  buildings  by  the  intrusion  of  factories  into  dis- 
tricts where  they  are  inappropriate.  We  are  deeply  impressed 
also  by  the  danger  to  life  which  may  arise  from  the  erection  of 
very  high  factory  buildings.  This  matter,  however,  is  being 
considered  by  the  Factory  Commission  and  we  have  therefore 
made  no  further  recommendations  on  the  subject. 


CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS 


75 


Dwellings 

The  many  questions  in  relation  to  improvement  of  housing 
conditions  that  would  naturally  come  within  the  scope  of  the 
work  of  this  Commission  will  we  believe  be  adequately  provided 
for  in  the  working  out  of  the  districting  plan  that  we  have  recom- 
mended. Under  this  plan,  four,  five  or  six  story  tenements  and 
apartment  houses  will  be  allowed,  according  to  the  character  of 
the  particular  district.  The  extreme  height,  at  the  street  line,  for 
apartment  houses  will  be  125  to  150  feet.  Large  outlying  areas 
will  be  made  into  exclusively  residential  districts  and  building 
construction  practically  restricted  to  one  or  two  family  houses. 
Regulations  varying  with  the  character  of  the  district  will  re- 
quire liberal  provision  for  courts  and  yards.  In  short,  the  hous- 
ing requirements  of  the  city  as  a  whole  will  be  considered  and  a 
plan  devised  that  will  work  to  the  mutual  advantage  of  all  con- 
cerned. 

Conclusion 

The  Charter  provides  that  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  with  the 
approval  of  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment,  may  pass 
ordinances  regulating  the  height  of  buildings.  We  have  not  con- 
strued this  as  giving  authority  for  districting  the  city  for  height 
limitation  purposes.  It  is  probably  necessary  to  secure  a  charter 
amendment  in  order  that  a  thorough  plan  of  building  control 
may  be  carried  out.  We  have  submitted  such  amendments,  which 
we  hope  will  be  enacted  by  the  state  legislature  during  the 
coming  year.  A  general  limitation  applicable  to  all  buildings 
throughout  the  city  can,  however,  be  enacted  by  the  Board  of 
Aldermen  and  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  under 
present  powers.  We  earnestly  recommend  that  such  action  be 
taken.   This  will  afford  immediate  relief  to  an  important  section 


/6  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

of  the  city  and  will  fit  in  with  any  districting  plan  that  is  later 
carried  out. 

Respectfully  submitted  by 

Heights  of  Buildings  Commission, 

Edward  M.  Bassett,  Chairman 
Edward  C.  Blum 
Edward  W.  Brown 
William  H.  Chesebrough 
William  A.  Cokeley 
Otto  M.  Eidlitz 
Abram  I.  Elkus 
Burt  L.  Fenner 
J.  Monroe  Hewlett 
Robert  W.  Higbie 
C.  Grant  La  Farge 
Nelson  P.  Lewis 
George  T.  Mortimer 
Lawson  Purdy 
Allan  Robinson 
August  F.  Schwarzler 
Franklin  S.  Tomlin 
Gaylord  S.  White 

George  B.  Ford,  Secretary 


DIAGRAM  IV 


DIAGRAM  V 


DIAGRAM  VI 


i  >J  A<  iKAM  \  1 1 


a 


T 


Cure.  Line 


Cedar  5t.  TLlev. 


Trinity  Place  TLlev. 


Notes  -.- 

"Fbesent  Building  is  indicated  thus  

Building  according  to  proposed  Code,  thus  — 
Courts  not  required  -  see  section  ns  IS  or 
the  proposed  Code . 


UNITED  STATES  REALTY  BUILDING 

Scale.: 


Dat*.-  Nov.  11  1913 

X>K  A."J  M  »  l   A  E  H 


DIAGRAM  VIII 


— ? 

 r]~77  1 

300  ft. 

 [1  JT  

—          — { 

T  1 

l 

] 

UH  1-+ 

H — H" 



i 

1 

'  i   i ! 

! 

ZOO  rr. 

: 

.  _. 

° 

— 1 

I00FT. 

L_   _  J 

5tCT|ON    AA,"  VfcNDtRBlUT    Avt.    &LC.V.  JtCTlON  'BO' 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX  I 


PROPOSED   CHARTER  AMENDMENTS   RELATIVE  TO 

DISTRICTING 

Height  and  open  spaces 

§  242-a.  The  board  of  estimate  and  apportionment  shall  have 
power  to  regulate  and  limit  the  height  and  bulk  of  buildings  here- 
after erected  and  to  regulate  and  determine  the  area  of  yards, 
courts  and  other  open  spaces.  The  board  may  divide  the  city  into 
districts  of  such  number,  shape  and  area  as  it  may  deem  best  suited 
to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  this  section.  The  regulations  as  to  the 
height  and  bulk  of  buildings  and  the  area  of  yards,  courts  and  other 
open  spaces  shall  be  uniform  for  each  class  of  buildings  through- 
out each  district.  The  regulations  in  one  or  more  districts  may  dif- 
fer from  those  in  other  districts. 

Such  regulations  shall  be  designed  to  secure  safety  from  fire 
and  other  dangers  and  to  promote  the  public  health  and  welfare 
including,  so  far  as  conditions  may  permit,  provision  for  adequate 
light,  air  and  convenience  of  access.  The  board  shall  pay  reason- 
able regard  to  the  character  of  buildings  erected  in  each  district,  the 
value  of  the  land  and  the  use  to  which  it  may  be  put  to  the  end 
that  such  regulations  may  promote  public  health,  safety  and  wel- 
fare and  the  most  desirable  use  for  which  the  land  of  each  district 
may  be  adapted  and  may  tend  to  conserve  the  value  of  buildings 
and  enhance  the  value  of  land  throughout  the  city. 

The  board  shall  appoint  a  commission  to  recommend  the  boun- 
daries of  districts  and  appropriate  regulations  to  be  enforced 
therein.  Such  commission  shall  make  a  tentative  report  and  hold 
public  hearings  thereon  at  such  times  and  places  as  said  board 
shall  require  before  submitting  its  final  report.  Said  board  shall 
not  determine  the  boundaries  of  any  district  nor  impose  any  regu- 
lation until  after  the  final  report  of  a  commission  so  appointed. 
After  such  final  report  said  board  shall  afford  persons  interested  an 
opportunity  to  be  heard  at  a  time  and  place  to  be  specified  in  a 
notice  of  hearing  to  be  published  for  ten  consecutive  days  in  the 
City  Record. 

Location  of  industries  and  buildings 

§  242 -b.  The  board  of  estimate  and  apportionment  may  reg- 
ulate and  restrict  the  location  of  trades  and  industries  and  the  loca- 
tion of  buildings  designed  for  specified  uses,  and  may  divide  the 
city  into  districts  of  such  number,  shape  and  area  as  it  may  deem 
best  suited  to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  this  section.  For  each  such 
district  regulations  may  be  imposed  designating  the  trades  and  in- 


78 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


dustries  that  shall  be  excluded  or  subjected  to  special  regulations 
and  designating  the  uses  for  which  buildings  may  not  be  erected 
or  altered.  Such  regulations  shall  be  designed  to  promote  the  pub- 
lic health,  safety  and  general  welfare.  The  board  shall  give  rea- 
sonable consideration,  among  other  things,  to  the  character  of  the 
district,  its  peculiar  suitability  for  particular  uses,  the  conservation 
of  property  values,  and  the  direction  of  building  development  in 
accord  with  a  well  considered  plan. 

The  board  shall  appoint  a  commission  to  recommend  the  boun- 
daries of  districts  and  appropriate  regulations  and  restrictions  to 
be  imposed  therein.  Such  commission  shall  make  a  tentative  report 
and  hold  public  hearings  thereon  before  submitting  its  final  report 
at  such  time  as  said  board  shall  require.  Said  board  shall  not  de- 
termine the  boundaries  of  any  district  nor  impose  any  regulations  or 
restrictions  until  after  the  final  report  of  a  commission  so  appointed. 
After  such  final  report  said  board  shall  afford  persons  interested 
an  opportunity  to  be  heard  at  a  time  and  place  to  be  specified  in  a 
notice  of  hearing  to  be  published  for  ten  consecutive  days  in  the 
City  Record. 

Note. — The  above  amendments  having  been  approved  by  the  Board  of 
Estimate  and  Apportionment  were  passed  by  the  Legislature,  approved  by 
the  Mayor  and  became  a  law  April  21,  1914,  with  the  signature  of  the 
Governor. 


APPENDIX  II 


PRESENT  RESTRICTIONS  IN  NEW  YORK  CITY 
By  Herbert  S.  Swan 
I— HEIGHT  OF  BUILDINGS 
I.    Height  of  Tenements 

Limitations  on  height 1 

The# following  three  provisions  regulate  the  maximum  height  of 
tenement  and  apartment  houses  inside  the  fire  limits : 

1.  The  height  of  a  tenement  may  not  exceed  1^2  times  the 
width  of  the  widest  abutting  street. 

2.  A  tenement  house  of  more  than  six  stories  in  height  must 
be  fireproof.  The  highest  tenement  in  the  city,  which  is  situated 
on  Park  Avenue,  is  17  stories  high. 

3.  All  tenement  houses,  both  fireproof  and  non-fireproof,  five 
stories  or  more  in  height  exclusive  of  the  cellar,  must  have  the  first 
floor  above  the  lowest  cellar,  or,  if  there  be  no  cellar,  the  first  floor 
above  the  lowest  story,  constructed  of  fireproof  material. 

Certain  other  non-fireproof  houses  must  also  be  provided  with 
fireproof  features.  Thus  every  non-fireproof  house  five  stories  in 
height,  or  four  stores  in  height  with  a  basement  above  a  cellar,  and 
occupied  by  one  or  more  families  on  any  floor  above  the  first,  must 
have  the  first  floor  above  the  cellar  or  lowest  story  constructed  of 
fireproof  material. 

Definition  of  height 2 

The  height  of  a  tenement  is  the  perpendicular  distance  through 
the  center  of  its  fagade  from  the  curb  level  to  the  under  side  of  the 
roof  beams.  If  the  cornice  exceeds  one-tenth  of  this  height,  then 
the  measurement  is  taken  to  the  top  of  the  cornice. 

Where  a  building  fronts  on  two  or  more  streets  of  different 
grades,  the  measurement  is  taken  on  the  street  having  the  highest 
grade.  In  the  case  of  a  tenement  on  a  corner  lot  formed  by  the 
intersection  of  one  street  passing  under  another,  the  measurement 
for  determining  its  height  and  the  number  of  its  stories  may  also 
be  taken  on  the  street  having  the  highest  level.  No  part  of  the 
building  below  the  curb  level  of  the  highest  street  may,  however, 
be  occupied  for  living  purposes  except  by  the  janitor  of  the  building 
and  his  family.  That  part  of  the  building  under  the  level  of  the 
highest  street  must,  moreover,  be  of  fireproof  construction. 

tenement  House  Law,  sees.  24,  51. 
'  Ibid.,  sec.  2,  subdivisions  7,  12,  15. 


8o 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Exceptions  from  height  limit 2 

Bulkheads,  superstructures  or  pent  houses  less  than  10  feet  in 
height  are  not  considered  in  computing  the  height  of  a  tenement, 
provided  their  area  does  not  exceed  10  per  cent  of  the  roof  area. 
Elevator  enclosures  not  exceeding  23  feet  in  height  and  used  solely 
for  elevator  purposes  are  excluded  from  consideration.  Open  per- 
golas and  similar  ornamentations  of  roof-gardens  or  playgrounds 
also  do  not  enter  into  the  calculation. 

In  fireproof  tenements  with  one  or  more  power  passenger  ele- 
vators the  pent  houses  and  bulkheads  may  cover  50  per  cent  of  the 
roof  area.  But  such  pent  houses  must  be  set  back  at  least  10  feet 
from  both  the  front  and  the  rear  walls  of  the  buildings  and  at  least 
3  feet  from  any  court  wall.  They  must  have  a  clear  inside  height 
of  at  least  9  feet  from  finished  floor  to  finished  ceiling,  and  they 
may  not  exceed  12  feet  in  height  from  the  highest  point  of  the  main 
roof  to  the  highest  point  of  their  own  roof.  They  must  be  entirely 
of  fireproof  construction.  Such  pent  houses  may  not  be  used  or 
rented  as  apartments.  Their  use  is  limited  solely  to  laundry  and 
storeroom  purposes,  and  to  servants'  and  janitor's  quarters. 

Wooden  tenements  4 

Outside  the  fire  limits  wooden  tenement  houses  may  be  erected 
subject  to  the  following  restrictions: 

No  such  tenement  may  be  more  than  three  stories  in  height.  If 
three  stories  in  height,  wooden  tenements  may  not  provide  accom- 
modations for  more  than  three  families  in  the  aggregate  or  for  more 
than  one  family  per  floor.  If  two  stories  in  height,  such  tenements 
may  not  accommodate  more  than  four  families  in  the  aggregate  or 
more  than  two  families  per  floor.  Their  height,  moreover,  may  not 
exceed  40  feet.  The  side  walls  of  all  wooden  tenements  must  be 
brick  filled. 

2.    Height  of  Frame  Buildings5 

Frame  buildings  may  be  erected  only  outside  the  fire  limits. 

In  those  portions  of  the  city  outside  the  fire  limits,  frame  build- 
ings may  not  be  erected  to  a  greater  height  than  three  stories,  or 
40  feet. 

Towers,  turrets  and  minarets  of  wood  may  be  erected  to  a  height 
of  55  feet.   Church  spires  may  be  erected  to  a  height  of  90  feet. 

3.    Height  of  Factories 
Fireproof  provisions  0 

The  height  of  factories  is  indirectly  limited  by  fireproofing  pro- 
visions. All  factories  over  four  stories  in  height  must  be  of  fire- 
proof construction. 

'Tenement  House  Law,  sec.  51. 

*  Ibid.,  sec.  31. 

*  Building  Code,  sec.  146. 
'Labor  Law,  sees.  79,  a-i  ;  f;  c-Q. 


PRESENT  RESTRICTIONS  IN   NEW  YORK  CITY  8l 

Buildings  considered  as  of  fireproof  construction  need  not,  how- 
ever, be  wholly  of  fireproof  construction.  Thus,  the  windows  may 
be  of  combustible  material  in  buildings  under  70  feet  high  unless 
a  neighboring  building  is  within  30  feet  or  unless  the  adjoining  court 
or  space  is  less  than  30  feet  wide.  Buildings  less  than  100  feet  in 
height  may  be  constructed  with  wooden  sleepers,  floor  finish,  and 
trim. 

The  industrial  board  has  laid  down  a  rule  to  the  effect  that  all 
factories  less  than  five  stories  and  employing  more  than  25  persons 
above  the  ground  floor  must  have  all  interior  stairways  enclosed  on 
all  sides  with  fireproof  partitions  from  the  basement  up.  The  indus- 
trial board  has  also  ruled  that  such  factories  must  have  interior 
fireproof  stairways,  regardless  of  the  number  of  persons  employed, 
if  merchandise  or  combustible  material  is  stored,  packed  or  manu- 
factured in  them.  An  exterior  fireproof  stairway  or  a  horizontal 
exit  may,  however,  be  substituted  for  such  interior  fireproof  stair- 
ways. If  automatic  sprinklers  are  installed  throughout  the  building, 
the  stairways  are  not  required  to  have  fireproof  enclosures  unless 
more  than  80  persons  are  employed  above  the  ground  floor. 

Number  of  employees  per  floor  limited 7' 

The  number  of  persons  that  may  occupy  any  factory  building  or 
portion  thereof  above  the  ground  floor  is  limited  to  such  a  number 
as  can  safely  escape  by  the  provided  means  of  exit. 

No  more  than  14  persons  may  be  employed  on  any  one  floor  for 
every  full  22  inches  in  width  of  stairway  conforming  to  the  means 
of  exit  provided  for  such  floor.  No  allowance  is  made  for  any 
excess  in  width  of  less  than  22  inches. 

Additional  employees  permitted  in  certain  cases  8 

1.  In  buildings  where  the  height  between  two  floors  exceeds  10 
feet,  an  additional  employee  is  allowed  on  the  upper  of  such  floors 
for  every  additional  16  inches  that  such  height  is  in  excess  of  10 
feet  for  every  22  inches  in  width  of  stairway  leading  to  the  lower 
floor. 

2.  Where  the  stairways  and  stair  halls  are  enclosed  in  fireproof 
partitions,  so  many  additional  persons  may  be  employed  on  any  one 
floor  as  can  occupy  the  enclosed  stair  hall  on  that  floor  allowing  five 
square  feet  of  unobstructed  floor  space  per  person. 

3.  Where  horizontal  exits  are  provided,  the  number  of  persons 
that  may  be  employed  on  any  floor  depends  upon  the  number  that  can 
occupy  either  the  smaller  of  the  two  spaces  on  such  floor  on  either 
side  of  the  fireproof  partitions  of  fire  walls  or  the  floor  of  an  adjoin- 
ing or  near-by  building  which  is  connected  with  such  floor  by  open- 
ings in  the  wall,  between  the  buildings  or  by  exterior  balconies  or 

7  Labor  Law,  sec.  79,  e-i. 
"Ibid.,  sec.  79,  e-3;  e-6;  e-8. 


82 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


bridges,  in  addition  to  the  occupants  of  such  connected  floors,  allow- 
ing five  square  feet  of  unobstructed  floor  space  per  person.  These 
horizontal  exits  must,  however,  be  of  a  sufficient  width  to  allow  22 
inches  in  width  of  opening  for  each  50  persons,  or  fraction  thereof, 
permitted  to  be  employed  on  such  floor. 

4.  Where  an  automatic  sprinkler  system,  conforming  to  the 
rules  and  regulations  of  the  industrial  board,  is  installed,  the  num- 
ber of  employees  permitted  on  any  floor  may  be  increased  50  per 
cent  except  that  this  increase  may  not  be  applied  to  the  two  fore- 
going provisions. 

5.  The  law  also  provides  that  a  minimum  floor  area  must  be 
allowed  every  employee.  In  fireproof  buildings  this  limit  is  fixed 
at  one  employee  for  32  square  feet  of  floor  space ;  in  non-fireproof 
buildings  at  36  square  feet.  These  provisions  place  an  absolute 
limit  on  the  number  of  persons  that  may  be  employed  on  any  floor. 

Fire  alarm  signal  system 9 

A  fire  alarm  signal  system  must  be  installed  in  every  factory  over 
two  stories  in  height  employing  more  than  25  persons  above  the 
ground  floor. 

Fire  drills  10 

Fire  drills  must  be  held  at  least  once  a  month  in  all  factories  over 
two  stories  high  with  more  than  25  employees  above  the  ground 
floor. 

Exits  11 

Every  factory  more  than  one  story  high  must  conform  to  the 
following  conditions: 

Every  floor  area  must  have  at  least  two  means  of  exit  remote 
from  each  other.  One  of  them  must,  on  every  floor  above  the 
ground  floor,  be  either  an  interior  enclosed  fireproof  stairway  or 
an  exterior  enclosed  fireproof  stairway.  The  other  must  be  either 
a  stairway  of  the  same  kind  or  a  horizontal  exit. 

No  point  in  any  floor  may  be  more  than  100  feet  distant  from 
the  entrance  of  one  of  these  exits. 

When  a  floor  area  exceeds  5000  square  feet,  at  least  one  addi- 
tional means  of  exit  must  be  provided  for  every  5000  square  feet 
or  part  thereof  in  excess  of  5000  square  feet.  At  least  one  exterior 
fireproof  stairway  must  be  provided  in  every  building  over  100  feet 
in  height.  This  stairway  must  be  accessible  from  every  point  in  the 
building. 


9  Labor  Law,  sec.  $3,  a-i. 
10 1  hid.,  sec.  83,  a-J. 
u  Ibid.,  sec.  79,  1-2. 


PRESENT  RESTRICTIONS  IN   NEW  YORK  CITY 


83 


Width  of  doorways  and  hallways 12 

The  width  of  hallways  and  exit  doors  leading  to  the  street  must 
at  the  street-level  not  be  less  than  the  aggregate  width  of  all  stair- 
ways leading  to  them. 

4.    Height  of  Other  Buildings 
Fireproofmg  provision  only  restriction  on  height 13 

All  hotels,  lodging-houses,  schools,  theaters,  jails,  police  stations, 
hospitals,  asylums  and  institutions  for  the  care  and  treatment  of 
persons  must  be  of  fireproof  construction  if  they  exceed  36^  feet 
in  height. 

All  other  buildings,  with  minor  exceptions,  must  be  of  fireproof 
construction  if  their  height  exceeds  75  feet. 

When  the  height  does  not  exceed  12  stories,  nor  more  than 
150  feet,  the  building  need  not  be  constructed  wholly  of  fireproof 
material — the  doors,  windows,  window  frames,  trims,  casings,  in- 
terior finish,  floor  boards  and  sleepers,  for  instance,  may  be  of 
wood.  When  the  height  exceeds  12  stories,  or  150  feet,  these 
must  be  of  fireproof  material. 

II—  SIZE    OF    NON-FIREPROOF    STORES,    WAREHOUSES  AND 

FACTORIES 14 

The  maximum  size  of  all  non-fireproof  stores,  warehouses  and 
factories  is  limited  in  case  iron,  steel  or  wood  columns  or  piers  of 
masonry  are  used  in  place  of  brick  partition  walls.  A  building  ex- 
tending from  street  to  street  is  limited  to  a  width  of  75  feet  and 
a  depth  of  210  feet,  with  a  maximum  area  of  15,750  square  feet. 
A  building  fronting  on  three  streets  is  limited  to  a  width  of  105 
feet  and  a  depth  of  210  feet,  with  a  maximum  area  of  22,050  square 
feet.  A  corner  building  fronting  on  two  streets  may  not  have  a 
greater  area  than  12,500  square  feet.  A  building  located  in  any 
other  manner  may  not  have  a  greater  area  than  8000  square  feet. 
The  superintendent  of  buildings  may,  however,  on  considering  the 
location  and  purpose  of  a  proposed  building,  allow  a  greater  area 
than  that  stipulated  above  provided  its  height  does  not  exceed  three 
stories. 

III—  FIRE  APPLIANCES,  FIRE-ESCAPES,  STAIRWAYS,  AND  FIRE- 

PROOF SHUTTERS  AND  DOORS 

Standpipes 15 

Every  building  exceeding  85  feet  in  height,  but  not  more  than 
150  feet,  must  be  provided  with  a  four-inch  standpipe  running 
from  cellar  to  roof.    In  buildings  exceeding  150  feet  in  height  such 

"Labor  Law,  sec.  79,  a-4. 
11  Building  Code,  sec.  105. 
u  Ibid.,  sec.  32. 
"Ibid.,  sec.  102. 


84 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


standpipes  must  be  at  least  six  inches  in  diameter.  If  any  part 
of  the  building  extends  from  street  to  street  or  forms  an  L  shape, 
standpipes  must  be  provided  on  each  street  frontage. 

Water-tank  on  roof 16 

Every  building  exceeding  150  feet  in  height  must  be  provided 
with  auxiliary  fire  apparatus,  consisting  of  water-tank  on  roof, 
or  in  cellar,  standpipes,  hose,  nozzles,  wrenches,  fire-extinguishers, 
hooks,  axes  and  such  other  appliances  as  may  be  required  by  the 
fire  department.  All  of  these  must  be  of  the  best  material  and  of 
the  sizes,  patterns  and  regulation  kind  used  and  required  by  the 
fire  department. 

Pumps  and  elevators  17 

A  steam  or  electric  pump  and  at  least  one  passenger  elevator 
must  be  kept  in  readiness  for  immediate  use  by  the  fire  depart- 
ment during  all  hours  of  the  night  and  day,  including  holidays  and 
Sundays,  in  all  buildings  exceeding  150  feet  in  height. 

Perforated  pipes  and  automatic  sprinklers  18 

Buildings  over  150  feet  in  height  used  or  occupied  for  business 
or  manufacturing  purposes  must  be  provided  with  2^2 -inch  per- 
forated iron  pipes  placed  on  and  along  the  ceiling  line  of  each 
floor  below  the  first  floor,  and  extending  the  full  depth  of  the 
building.  This  perforated  pipe  must  be  provided  with  a  valve 
placed  at  or  near  the  standpipe  so  that  water  can  be  let  into  it  when 
deemed  necessary  by  the  firemen.  When  the  building  is  25  feet 
or  less  in  width,  two  lines  of  perforated  pipe  must  be  provided. 
Where  the  building  is  more  than  25  feet  in  width  an  additional 
perforated  pipe  shall  be  provided  for  each  12^  feet,  or  part  thereof, 
that  the  building  is  wider  than  25  feet.  Automatic  sprinklers  may 
be  installed  in  lieu  of  such  perforated  pipes. 

Stairways  19 

Stores,  factories,  hotels  or  lodging-houses,  covering  a  lot  area 
exceeding  2500  square  feet,  but  not  more  than  5000  square  feet, 
must  be  provided  with  at  least  two  continuous  lines  of  stairs  re- 
mote from  each  other.  Such  buildings,  furthermore,  must  have  at 
least  one  continuous  line  of  stairs  for  each  5000  square  feet  of  lot 
area  in  excess  of  that  required  for  5000  square  feet  of  area.  When 
a  building  covers  more  than  5000  square  feet  of  area,  the  num- 
ber of  stairs  shall  either  be  increased  in  this  proportion  or  as  will 
meet  the  approval  of  the  commissioner  of  buildings. 

19  Building  Code,  sec.  102. 

"  Ibid. 

"Ibid. 

M  Ibid.,  sec.  75. 


PRESENT  RESTRICTIONS  IN   NEW  YORK  CITY  85 

Fire-escapes  and  stairways  20 

Fire-escapes,  stairways  or  other  means  of  egress  in  case  of  fire 
shall  be  provided  as  directed  by  the  tenement  house  department 
for  tenements  and  the  fire  department  for  other  buildings,  as 
follows : 

1.  Every  tenement  house  exceeding  one  story  in  height. 

2.  Every  building  more  than  three  stories  in  height  occupied 
and  used  as  a  hotel  or  lodging-house. 

3.  Every  boarding-house  having  more  than  15  sleeping-rooms 
above  the  basement  story. 

4.  Every  factory,  mill,  manufacturing  or  work  shop,  hospital, 
asylum  or  institution  for  the  care  or  treatment  of  individuals. 

5.  Every  building  three  stories  and  over  in  height  used  or 
occupied  as  a  store  or  workroom. 

6.  Every  building  in  whole  or  in  part  occupied  or  used  as  a 
school  or  place  of  instruction  or  assembly. 

7.  Every  office  building  five  stories  or  more  in  height. 

Exits  in  theaters  21 

Every  theater  erected  for  the  accommodation  of  more  than  300 
persons  must  have  at  least  one  front  on  the  street.  This  front 
may  not  have  a  smaller  width  than  25  feet. 

Suitable  means  of  entrance  and  exits  must  be  provided  in  this 
front.  Theaters  accommodating  300  persons  must  have  at  least 
two  exits  and  those  accommodating  500  persons  three  exits.  These 
exits  must  be  at  least  five  feet  wide.  Theaters  accommodating 
more  than  500  persons  must  have  additional  exit  facilities — every 
additional  100  persons  or  portion  thereof  in  excess  of  500  must 
be  provided  with  20  inches  of  exit  width. 

Distinct  and  separate  places  of  entrance  must  be  provided  for 
each  gallery  above  the  first. 

In  addition  to  these  entrances  and  exits,  emergency  exits  into 
side  and  rear  courts  or  into  the  side  street  must  be  provided.  There 
must  be  at  least  two  such  exits  with  a  minimum  width  of  five  feet 
on  each  side  in  each  tier  of  the  auditorium  including  the  parquet. 

When  a  theater  is  located  on  a  corner  lot,  that  portion  border- 
ing on  the  side  street  and  not  required  for  the  uses  of  the  theater 
may,  if  such  portion  be  not  more  than  25  feet  in  width,  be  used  for 
orifices,  stores  or  apartments.  This  permission  may,  however,  not 
interfere  in  any  way  with  the  required  emergency  exits.  The 
wall  separating  the  auditorium  and  the  portion  so  used  must  be 
of  fireproof  construction  to  the  roof. 

"  Building  Code,  sec.  103.  , 
"Ibid.,  sec.  109. 


86 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Fireproof  shutters  and  doors 22 

Every  building  more  than  two  stories  in  height  above  the  curb 
level,  except  dwelling  houses,  hotels,  schoolhouses  and  churches, 
must  have  doors,  blinds  or  shutters  made  of  iron  built  into  the 
wall  on  every  exterior  window  or  opening  above  the  first  story, 
excepting  on  the  front  openings  fronting  on  streets  which  are  more 
than  30  feet  in  width,  or  where  no  other  buildings  are  within  30 
feet  of  such  openings. 

IV— PROVISIONS  REGARDING  OPEN  SPACE 

There  are  no  statutory  or  other  legal  provisions  restricting  the 
percentage  of  lot  area  that  may  be  covered  by  stores,  factories, 
warehouses,  etc.  Such  buildings  may  cover  100  per  cent  of  the 
lot  area  in  the  case  of  all  lots. 

Open  space  about  private  dwellings23 

No  private  dwelling  house  may  occupy  more  than  90  per  cent 
of  the  lot  area. 

Open  space  about  hotels24 

Hotels  situated  on  corner  lots  and  covering  an  area  of  not  more 
than  3000  square  feet  are  prohibited  from  occupying  more  than 
95  per  cent  of  the  lot  area  above  the  second  story  level. 

Hotels  situated  on  interior  lots  and  not  more  than  five  stories 
in  height  are  prohibited  from  occupying  more  than  90  per  cent 
of  the  lot  area  above  the  second  story  level.  An  additional  2^2 
per  cent  of  uncovered  lot  area  must  be  provided  for  each  and 
every  story  over  five.  In  the  case  of  a  21 -story  hotel  this  space 
would  equal  half  of  the  lot  area. 

Where  a  hotel  occupies  a  number  of  lots,  the  arrangement  and 
distribution  of  the  open  space  must  be  such  as  in  the  opinion  of 
the  commissioner  of  buildings  will  secure  both  light  and  ventilation. 

The  board  of  examiners,  however,  has.  the  power  to  modify 
.these  provisions.  In  some  cases  this  modification  amounts  to  a 
repeal  of  the  Building  Code.  An  instance  of  this  is  the  McAlpin 
Hotel  on  34th  Street  and  Broadway.  The  lot  area  of  this  hotel 
is  about  31,000  square  feet.  The  bureau  of  buildings  insisted  the 
building  should  cover  only  51  per  cent  of  this  area  above  the  first 
story.  The  owners  appealed  to  the  board  of  examiners  and  re- 
ceived permission  to  cover  83  per  cent  of  the  area  above  the  first 
story. 

Open  space  about  office  buildings  28 

Office  buildings  erected  on  interior  lots  may  not  cover  more  than 
90  per  cent  of  the  lot  area  at  and  above  the  second  story  floor  level. 

■  Building  Code,  sec.  104. 
31  Ibid.,  sec.  8. 

m  Ibid.,  sec.  10.  , 
"  IMd.,  sec.  11. 


PRESENT  RESTRICTIONS  IN  NEW  YORK  CITY  8/ 


The  Building  Code  sets  no  limit  on  the  area  that  office  buildings  on 
corner  lots  of  not  over  3000  square  feet  may  cover. 

Open  space  about  frame  buildings 28 

A  space  of  at  least  3  feet  must  intervene  between  a  frame  build- 
ing and  the  rear  and  side  lot  lines  unless  the  space  between  the 
studs  on  any  such  side  be  filled  solidly  with  not  less  than  2^2  inches 
of  brickwork  or  fireproof  material. 

Open  space  about  theaters 27 

Every  theater  or  opera-house  erected  for  the  accommodation 
of  more  than  300  persons  must  be  provided  with  an  open  court, 
in  the  rear  and  on  the  side  not  bordering  on  the  street  in  the  case 
of  a  corner  lot,  and  in  the  rear  and  on  both  sides  in  the  case  of 
a  lot  having  but  one  street  frontage.  The  width  of  these  courts 
must  be  proportioned  to  the  seating  capacity  of  the  theater.  The 
court  must  have  a  minimum  width  of  10  feet  where  the  seating 
capacity  is  less  than  1000;  of  12  feet  where  the  seating  capacity 
exceeds  1000  but  is  less  than  1800;  and  of  14  feet  where  the  seat- 
ing capacity  exceeds  1800. 

These  courts  must  extend  the  full  length  and  height  of  each 
side  and  the  rear  of  the  building  where  its  sides  or  side  or  rear  does 
not  abut  on  a  street  or  alley.  They  must  be  the  same  width  through- 
out. 

Though  these  are  the  legal  provisions  with  reference  to  open 
space  about  theaters,  they  are  very  seldom  applied  in  practice.  In 
building  a  theater  it  is  customary  to  appeal  to  the  board  of  ex- 
aminers for  a  modification  of  these  regulations.  The  board,  as  a 
rule,  gives  a  more  or  less  favorable  ruling  on  these  appeals. 

Open  space  about  lodging-houses 28 

No  lodging-house  may  occupy  more  than  65  per  cent  of  the 
area  of  an  interior  lot,  unless,  in  the  opinion  of  the  superintendent 
of  buildings,  a  larger  area  might  be  permitted  without  prejudice 
to  the  light  and  ventilation  of  the  building,  when  it  may  cover  75 
per  cent. 

On  corner  lots  such  buildings  may  not  cover  more  than  92 
per  cent  of  the  lot  area  above  the  first  story.  A  lodging-house  on  a 
corner  lot  may  not  be  erected  nearer  than  five  feet  to  the  rear 
boundary. 

The  interior  courts  or  shafts  may  not  be  less  than  two  feet  four 
inches  in  width.  This  provision  applies  to  both  interior  and  corner 
lots. 

In  computing  the  amount  of  a  lot  area  covered  by  a  lodging- 
house,  no  cognizance  is  taken  of  courts  or  shafts  possessing  an 
area  of  less  than  25  square  feet. 

"  Building  Code,  sec.  146. 

"Ibid.,  sec.  109. 

"City  Charter,  sec.  1315. 


88 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Shafts  and  courts  of  a  smaller  area  than  10  square  feet  may  be 
covered. 

Buildings  erected  on  same  lot  as  lodging-houses 

No  building  may  be  erected  on  a  lot  already  containing  a  lodging- 
house  unless  a  space  is  left  between  such  building  and  lodging- 
house.  When  such  building  is  one  story  high  this  space  must  be  at 
least  10  feet  in  width;  if  two  stories,  15  feet;  if  three  stories,  20 
feet;  and  if  over  three  stories,  25  feet.  The  width  of  this  space 
may,  however,  be  lessened  or  modified  if,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
bureau  of  buildings,  the  thorough  ventilation  of  the  space  is  not 
impaired. 

Only  buildings  possessing  an  open  space  with  a  width  of  10 
feet  in  the  rear  may  be  converted  to  lodging-houses. 

Open  Space  About  Tenement  Houses  29 

The  amount  of  open  space  demanded  in  the  case  of  apartment 
houses  and  tenements  is  a  variable  quantity.  The  area  required  in 
any  particular  case  is  dependent  upon  several  different  factors :  on 
the  vertical  and  horizontal  dimensions  of  the  building  ;  the  interior 
arrangement  and  occupancy  of  the  building;  the  shape  and  size 
of  the  building  site ;  and  the  location  of  the  building  site.  The  fol- 
lowing five  provisions  are  the  most  important : 

1.  Tenements  situated  on  corner  lots  may  occupy  90  per  cent 
of  the  lot  area. 

2.  Tenements  situated  on  interior  lots  more  than  90  feet  but 
less  than  105  feet  in  depth  may  occupy  70  per  cent  of  the  lot  area. 

3.  Tenements  situated  on  interior  lots  more  than  105  feet  in 
depth  may  occupy  65  per  cent  of  the  lot  area. 

The  above  three  provisions  do  not,  however,  apply  to  tenements 
erected  on  lots  not  exceeding  100  feet  that  run  through  from  one 
street  to  another. 

4.  Tenements  situated  on  interior  lots  not  exceeding  three 
stories  and  cellar  in  height,  and  which  are  not  occupied  or  arranged 
to  be  occupied  by  more  than  six  families,  or  by  more  than  two 
families  on  any  floor,  and  in  which  each  apartment  extends 
from  the  street  to  the  yard,  and  which  are  provided  with  inner 
courts  with  bathroom  extension,  may  occupy  65  per  cent  of  the 
lot  area. 

5.  Tenements  situated  on  interior  lots,  not  exceeding  four 
stories  and  cellar  in  height,  and  which  are  not  occupied  or  arranged 
to  be  occupied  by  more  than  eight  families,  or  by  more  than  two 
families  on  any  floor,  and  in  which  each  apartment  extends  from 
the  street  to  the  yard,  and  which  are  provided  with  inner  courts, 
may  occupy  72  per  cent  of  the  lot  area. 

Tenements  situated  on  interior  lots  less  than  00  feet  in  depth,  if 


"Tenement  House  Law,  sec?.  62,  63. 


PRESENT  RESTRICTIONS  IN  NEW  YORK  CITY  89 

provided  with  a  sufficient  number  of  legal-sized  courts,  are  not  re- 
quired to  leave  any  specific  percentage  of  the  lot  area  vacant. 

The  exact  distribution  and  arrangement  of  the  open  space  de- 
manded for  tenements  is  controlled  by  that  provision  in  the  law 
which  requires  every  room,  including  water-closet  compartments 
and  bathrooms,  to  have  at  least  one  window  opening  directly  upon 
the  street  or  upon  a  yard  or  court  of  specified  dimensions.  No 
apartment,  moreover,  of  three  rooms  or  less  may  extend  in  depth 
from  the  street  or  yard,  as  the  case  may  be,  for  a  greater  distance 
than  18  feet  without  the  intervention  of  an  inner  or  outer  court. 

The  total  window  area  of  each  room,  except  water-closet  com- 
partments and  bathrooms,  must  be  at  least  one-tenth  of  the  super- 
ficial area  of  the  room.  No  window  may  be  less  than  12  square 
feet  in  area  between  the  stop-beads. 

The  following  table  shows  the  minimum  size  demanded  for  the 
different  kinds  of  courts : 


Courts  between  wings 
or  parts  of  same  build- 
ing or  between  different 


Courts  situated  on  lot  line    buildings   on   same  lot 

 A  A 


Height 
of 

buildings 
in  feet 

Yard, 
interior 
lot,  depth 

in  feet 

r 

Outer 
court, 
width 
in  feet 

Inner 
court, 
dimensions 
in  feet 

f 

Outer 
court, 
width 
in  feet 

■  "\ 
Inner 
court, 
dimension* 

in  feet 

36 

10 

5 

II       X  22 

10 

22  x  22 

48 

ii 

ii^  x  23 

11 

23  x  23 

60 

12 

6 

12       X  24 

12 

24  x  24 

72 

13 

6^ 

12^  X  25 

13 

25  x  25 

84 

14 

7 

13     x  26 

14 

26  x  26 

96 

15 

t 

13^  x  27 

15 

27  x  27 

108 

16 

14     x  28 

16 

28  x  28 

120 

17 

i4y2  x  29 

17 

29  x  29 

132 

18 

9  / 

15     x  30 

18 

30  x  30 

144 

19 

9JA 

15^  x  31 

19 

3i  x  31 

156 

20 

IO 

16     x  32 

20 

32  x  32 

Yards 30 

Every  tenement  must  be  provided  with  a  yard  extending  across 
the  entire  width  of  the  lot.  For  a  60-foot  building  on  an  interior 
lot  the  minimum  depth  of  this  yard  is  12  feet.  The  depth  of  this 
yard  must  be  increased  one  foot  for  every  additional  12  feet  of 
height  of  building,  or  fraction  thereof,  above  60  feet.  For  every 
decrease  of  12  feet  in  height  it  might  be  diminished  one  foot  in 
depth.    It  must,  however,  have  a  minimum  depth  of  10  feet. 

In  the  case  of  a  corner  lot  the  depth  of  this  space  must  be  at 
least  10  feet.  But  where  the  lot  is  less  than  100  feet  in  depth  the 
depth  of  the  yard  need  not  be  more  than  10  per  cent  of  the  depth 

"Tenement  House  Law,  sees.  52,  53,  54,  55. 


90 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


of  the  lot,  provided  the  yard  is  never  less  than  five  feet  deep  nor 
less  than  the  minimum  width  of  an  outer  court  situated  on  the  lot 
line  as  described  below. 

In  the  case  of  gore-shaped  corner  lots  where  the  width  of  the 
lot  at  the  rear  lot  line  is  greater  than  the  width  at  the  front  and  the 
average  width  of  the  lot  does  not  exceed  50  feet,  the  average  width 
through  the  center  is  taken  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  area 
of  the  yard. 

Where  a  corner  lot  exceeds  50  feet  in  width,  the  excess  over  50 
feet  is  considered  in  the  same  manner  as  an  interior  lot. 

Tenements  on  lots  running  through  from  one  street  to  another 
and  over  70  and  less  than  105  feet  in  depth  must  have  a  yard 
through  the  center  of  the  lot. 

This  yard  may  never  be  less  than  12  feet  in  depth.  Its  depth  is 
regulated  according  to  the  height  of  the  building,  as  in  the  case 
of  other  yards.  Where  such  a  lot  is  over  105  feet  in  depth,  the 
yard  left  through  the  center  may  not  be  less  than  24  feet  in  depth. 
The  depth  of  this  yard  must  be  increased  one  foot  for  every  addi- 
tional 12  feet  of  height  of  building,  or  fraction  thereof,  over  60 
feet. 

Where  a  single  tenement  runs  through  from  one  street  to  an- 
other and  also  occupies  the  entire  block,  no  yard  need  be  provided. 
Where  a  single  tenement  is  situated  on  a  lot  formed  by  the  inter- 
section of  two  streets  meeting  at  an  acute  angle,  the  yard  need  not 
extend  across  the  entire  width  of  the  lot,  provided  it  extends  to  a 
point  in  line  with  the  middle  line  of  the  block. 

Outer  courts 

1.  Courts  situated  011  lot  line 

An  outer  court  of  a  building  60  feet  in  height  situated  on  the  lot 
line  must  be  at  least  six  feet  in  width.  Such  a  court  in  a  tenement 
more  or  less  than  60  feet  in  height  has  its  width  graduated  on  either 
a  progressive  or  a  regressive  scale — the  width  of  a  court  of  a  60- 
foot  building  being  the  basis  for  this  graduation.  If  the  building  is 
higher  than  60  feet,  the  width  of  the  court  is  increased  six  inches 
for  every  12  feet  of  additional  height,  or  fractional  part  thereof, 
above  60  feet ;  if  the  building  is  less  than  60  feet  in  height,  the  width 
of  the  court  is  diminished  six  inches  for  every  12  feet  of  height 
below  60  feet. 

2.  Courts  situated  between  wings  or  parts  of  same  building,  or 

between  different  buildings  on  same  lot 

An  outer  court  of  a  building  60  feet  in  height  situated  between 
wings  or  parts  of  the  same  building,  or  between  different  buildings 
on  the  same  lot,  must  be  at  least  12  feet  in  width.  Such  a  court  in 
a  tenement  more  or  less  than  60  feet  in  height  also  has  its  width 
graduated  on  either  a  progressive  or  a  regressive  scale — the  width 
of  a  court  of  a  60-foot  building  being  the  basis  for  this  graduation. 


PRESENT  RESTRICTIONS  IN  NEW  YORK  CITY 


91 


If  the  building  is  higher  than  60  feet,  the  width  of  the  court  is 
increased  one  foot  for  every  12  feet  of  additional  height,  or  frac- 
tional part  thereof,  above  60  feet;  if  the  building  is  less  than  60 
feet  in  height,  the  width  of  the  court  is  diminished  one  foot  for  every 
12  feet  of  height  below  60  feet. 

3.  Other  provisions 

Where  the  depth  of  an  outer  court  is  less  than  the  minimum 
width  prescribed  in  the  above  table,  then  its  width  may  be  equal  to 
but  not  less  than  its  depth,  provided  the  width  is  not  less  than  four 
feet  in  the  clear.  This  exception  also  applies  to  offsets  and  recesses 
in  inner  and  outer  courts.  No  window,  except  that  of  a  water- 
closet  compartment,  bathroom  or  hall,  may  face  on  any  court  less 
than  six  feet  wide. 

When  an  outer  court  changes  its  initial  horizontal  direction,  or 
any  part  of  such  court  extends  in  a  direction  so  as  not  to  receive 
direct  light  from  the  street  or  yard,  the  length  of  such  portion  of 
said  court  may  not  be  any  greater  than  its  width. 

4.  Exceptions  from  general  provisions 31 

An  exception  from  the  above  table  is  also  made  in  the  case  of 
outer  courts  for  tenements  not  exceeding  four  stories  and  cellar  in 
height  and  which  are  not  occupied  or  arranged  to  be  occupied  by 
more  than  eight  families  exclusive  of  the  janitor's  family,  or  by 
more  than  two  families  on  any  floor,  and  in  which  the  apartments 
extend  through  from  the  street  to  the  yard.  Where  the  outer  court 
of  such  a  tenement  is  situated  on  the  lot  line  and  does  not  extend 
from  the  street  to  the  yard,  and  if  its  length  does  not  exceed  36  feet, 
its  width  need  not  be  more  than  four  feet.  Where  the  court  of 
such  a  tenement  is  situated  between  wings  of  or  parts  of  the  same 
building,  or  between  different  buildings  on  the  same  lot,  and  if  its 
length  does  not  exceed  36  feet,  its  width  need  not  be  more  than 
eight  feet. 

An  exception  is  also  made  in  the  case  of  outer  courts  for  tene- 
ments not  exceeding  five  stories  and  cellar  in  height  and  which  are 
not  occupied  or  arranged  to  be  occupied  by  more  than  ten  families, 
exclusive  of  the  janitor's  family,  or  by  more  than  two  families  on 
any  floor,  and  in  which  the  apartments  extend  through  from  the 
street  to  the  yard.  Where  an  outer  court  of  such  a  tenement  is 
situated  on  the  lot  line  its  width  may  not~be  less  than  five  feet  in 
any  part  measured  to  the  lot  line  nor  less  than  ten  feet  in  any  part 
measured  to  the  nearest  opposite  wall.  Where  an  outer  court  of 
such  a  tenement  is  situated  between  wings  or  parts  of  the  same 
building,  or  between  different  buildings  on  the  same  lot,  its  width 
measured  from  wall  to  wall  may  not  be  less  than  10  feet  in  any  part. 
These  provisions  apply,  however,  only  in  case  the  length  of  the 
court  does  not  exceed  50  feet. 


11  Tenement  House  Law,  sec.  57. 


92 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Inner  courts 

An  inner  court  of  a  6o-foot  building  so  situated  that  one  side  is 
on  the  lot  line  must  have  a  minimum  width  of  12  feet  and  a  mini- 
mum length  of  24  feet  in  every  part.  For  every  12  feet  of  increase, 
or  fraction  thereof,  in  the  height  of  building  the  width  and  length 
of  such  court  must  be  increased  six  inches  and  one  foot  respec- 
tively;  with  every  12  feet  of  decrease  in  height  the  width  and 
length  may  be  decreased  six  inches  and  one  foot  respectively. 

The  least  horizontal  dimension  of  an  inner  court  of  a  60-foot 
building  not  situated  upon  the  lot  line  but  inclosed  on  all  four  sides 
must  be  at  least  24  feet.  For  every  12  feet  of  increase,  or  fraction 
thereof,  in  the  height  of  building  each  horizontal  dimension  of  the 
court  must  be  increased  one  foot;  for  every  12  feet  of  decrease  in 
the  height  of  building  each  horizontal  dimension  may  be  decreased 
one  foot. 

Exceptions  from  general  provisions  32 

An  exception  is  made  to  the  above  rule  in  the  case  of  tenements 
situated  on  interior  lots  not  exceeding  four  stories  and  cellar  in 
height,  and  which  are  not  occupied  or  arranged  to  be  occupied  by 
more  than  eight  families,  or  by  more  than  two  families  on  any 
floor,  and  in  which  each  apartment  extends  from  the  street  to  the 
yard,  and  which  do  not  occupy  more  than  72  per  cent  of  the  lot 
area.  An  inner  lot  line  court  of  such  building  need  not  be  more 
than  eight  feet  wide  nor  more  than  14  feet  long.  An  inner  court, 
however,  which  is  not  situated  on  the  lot  line  but  inclosed  on  all 
four  sides  must  be  at  least  14  feet  in  each  dimension. 

An  exception  is  also  made  in  the  case  of  tenements  situated  on 
interior  lots  not  exceeding  three  stories  and  cellar  in  height,  and 
which  are  not  occupied  or  arranged  to  be  occupied  by  more  than 
six  families,  or  by  more  than  two  families  on  any  floor.  In  such 
buildings  a  bathroom  extension  may  be  erected  in  inner  courts 
situated  on  the  lot  line,  provided  such  extension  has  no  window 
facing  an  opposite  building,  and  provided  its  maximum  width  does 
not  exceed  4J/2  feet  nor  its  length  7  feet,  and  also  provided  the 
width  of  the  court  is  not  reduced  by  such  extension  to  less  than 
3^2  feet.  Inner  lot  line  courts  in  such  tenements  occupying  not 
more  than  65  per  cent  of  the  lot  area  must  have  a  minimum  width 
of  4  feet  measured  from  the  lot  line  to  the  opposite  wall  of  the 
building  and  a  minimum  width  of  8  feet  measured  from  wall  to 
wall.  The  length  of  the  court  must  be  at  least  \2l/2  feet.  An 
inner  court  of  such  tenement  not  situated  on  the  lot  line  but  inclosed 
on  all  four  sides  must  have  a  minimum  width  of  8  feet  and  a  mini- 
mum length  of  I2y2  feet. 

Offsets  and  recesses  are  permitted  in  inner  courts  that  are  not 
less  than  10  feet  wide. 


"  Tenement  House  Law,  sec.  58. 


PRESENT   RESTRICTIONS   IN    NEW   YORK  CITY 


93 


Cutting  off  court  corners 33 

Both  outer  and  inner  courts  may  have  their  corners  cut  off, 
provided  the  running  length  of  the  wall  at  the  angle  of  the  court 
does  not  exceed  7  feet.  In  outer  and  inner  courts  of  a  less  size 
than  the  minimum  prescribed  for  tenements  60  feet  in  height  the 
running  length  of  the  wall  containing  windows  in  the  angle  of  the 
court  must  not  exceed  4  feet.  An  inner  court  less  than  8  feet  in 
width  may  not,  however,  be  reduced  by  having  its  corners  cut  off. 

Buildings  on  same  lot  with  tenement  houses  34 

If  a  building  is  placed  on  the  same  lot  as  a  tenement,  an  open 
space  must  be  provided  that  conforms  to  the  following  regulations : 

Where  either  building  is  60  feet  in  height  the  space  must  be  24 
feet  from  wall  to  wall.  The  space  must  be  increased  1  foot  in 
depth  for  every  12  feet  of  increase,  or  fraction  thereof,  in  the 
height  of  such  buildings.  It  may  be  decreased  1  foot  in  depth  for 
every  12  feet  decrease  in  the  height. 

No  building  of  any  kind  may  be  placed  upon  the  same  lot  as  a 
tenement  so  as  to  decrease  the  minimum  legal  size  of  any  court  or 
yard. 

Rear  tenements  35 

No  separate  tenement  may  be  erected  upon  the  rear  of  a  lot 
50  feet  or  less  in  width  where  there  is  already  a  tenement  on  the 
front.  Xor  may  any  tenement  be  erected  on  the  front  of  such  a 
lot  already  having  a  tenement  in  the  rear. 


"Tenement  House  Law,  sec.  59. 
**  Ibid.,  sec.  61. 
"Ibid.,  sec.  60. 


APPENDIX  III 


THE  GERMAN  ZONE  BUILDING  REGULATIONS 

By  Frank  Backus  Williams 

In  the  solution  of  municipal  problems  no  nation  to-day  has 
progressed  so  far  as  Germany;  and  no  contribution  to  this  end  is 
more  widely  or  favorably  known  than  the  zone  system  of  building 
regulations  which  was  there  first  conceived  and  applied. 

The  method  of  the  construction  of  cities  may  be  divided  into 
two  parts :  city  planning,  and  regulation  of  building  in  accordance 
with  the  plan.1  The  city  plan  lays  out  the  streets,  sewers,  parks, 
transit  system,  and  other  features  of  the  city ;  the  building  regula- 
tions prescribe  and  limit  the  character,  location  and  intensity  of 
building  in  accordance  with  the  plan.  Thus  the  city  plan  locates 
the  principal  business  and  traffic  streets,  and  gives  them  their  di- 
rection, breadth  and  depth  of  lot;  while  the  building  regulations 
prescribe  what  kind  of  buildings  may  be  erected  on  these  streets, 
how  much  of  the  lot  they  may  cover,  and  how  high  they  shall  be. 
Both  the  plan  and  the  regulations  are  necessary  to  the  completed 
street ;  to  the  construction  of  the  city,  as  a  whole,  and  each  of  its 
parts.2 

The  zone  system  is  a  method  of  regulating  building  under  the 
city  plan.3  It  originated  in  Germany  and  receives  the  name  because 
most  of  the  cities  were  walled  cities  and  grew  in  zones.  It  has  two 
characteristics :  it  groups  buildings  of  different  classes,  and  it  limits 
the  density  of  building  progressively,  allowing  buildings  to  be 
higher  and  to  cover  more  of  the  lot  in  the  centers  where  the  land 
values  are  greater  and  business  needs  require  more  concentration ; 
making  the  requirements  more  and  more  severe  as  the  distance  from 
these  centers  increases. 

Originally,  the  business  center  was,  roughly  speaking,  bounded 
by  a  circular  line  where  the  old  walls  had  been,  within  which  the 
land  was  dearest.  After  the  walls  were  thrown  down,  develop- 
ment and  dear  land  came  in  belts  or  zones,  the  land  becoming  cheaper 
and  less  intensely  used  as  it  was  farthest  from  the  old  city.  The 
system  might  more  properly  be  called  the  "  district  system."  In  many 
German  cities  where  it  is  to-day  applied  there  are  several  centers  of 
concentration  and  dear  land ;  and  the  different  requirements  vary 
in  severity  according  to  conditions  which  change  in  no  very  precise 
proportion  to  distance  from  a  center. 

The  zone  system  was  first  advocated  by  the  veteran  city  planner 
Baumeister  in  the  'jo's,  but  was  first  actually  carried  out  in  Altona 

1  As  to  the  jurisdiction  nf  the  City,  the  State,  and  the  Empire,  see  page  108. 
1  As  to  jurisdiction  in  these  matters,  see  p.  108. 

•As  to  the  hasis  of  authority  to  issue  huilding  regulations,  see  p.  110. 


GERMAN  ZONE  BUILDING  REGULATIONS 


95 


in  1884.  The  noted  Franz  Adickes  was  at  that  time  its  mayor.  In 
Germany  a  new  mayor  is  usually  obtained  by  advertisement,  and  a 
man  who  has  made  a  marked  success  in  a  smaller  city  is  often  em- 
ployed by  a  larger  one  when  in  need  of  a  new  incumbent.  So,  in 
1890,  Adickes  became  mayor  of  Frankfort.*  In  1891  he  introduced 
the  zone  system,  and  it  has  been  in  force  there  ever  since.  From 
Frankfort  it  spread  to  other  German  and  to  Swiss  and  Scandinavian 
cities  and  is  now  the  prevailing  system  in  these  countries. 

Under  the  German  rules  the  height  of  buildings  is  invariably  reg- 
ulated with  relation  to  the  width  of  the  street  upon  which  the  building 
is  situated ;  and  also,  usually,  by  a  maximum  which,  irrespective  of 
the  width  of  the  street,  it  must  not  exceed.  In  many  cities,  in  the 
zone  or  zones  of  greatest  concentration,  a  height  a  little  in  excess 
of  the  street  width  is  allowed ;  in  the  other  zones  it  must  not  exceed 
that  width,  and  in  the  outer  zone  or  zones  the  maximum  limits  it 
to  less.  Usually,  too,  there  are  minimum  courts,  and  all  rooms  con- 
structed for  the  residence  or  long-continued  business  use  of  man- 
kind must  have  a  window  upon  a  court  at  least  that  size.  The 
proportion  of  the  lot  that  may  be  covered  by  buildings,  also,  is 
almost  invariably  limited  progressively,  buildings  on  corner  lots  in 
each  zone  being  allowed  to  cover  more  than  those  on  inside  lots. 
The  ordinances  in  the  different  cities  differ,  of  course,  in  detail ; 
for  not  only  the  cities  themselves  are  different,  but  the  judgment 
of  the  city  fathers  varies  as  well.  In  a  very  general  way,  however, 
the  system  is  the  same.  The  provisions  of  the  Frankfort-on-the- 
Main  ordinance  illustrate  it  as  well  as  any  other.4 

The  old  or  inner  city  is  the  first  zone  or  district.  Here  the 
highest  buildings  are  allowed.  They  must  not  exceed  the  width  of 
the  street,  plus  about  10  feet  (3  meters),  or  in  any  case,  however 
wide  the  street,  about  66  feet  (20  meters).5  This  is  to  the  cornice; 
the  roof  above  this  is  restricted  by  an  angle,  and  in  no  case  may 
exceed  about  30  feet  (9  meters).  The  roof  is  more  than  mere 
roof ;  it  is  a  roof  story,  in  which  there  are  rooms,  which,  however, 
may  not  always  be  used  for  residence.  The  number  of  stories  is 
also  restricted  ;  in  this  zone  it  must  not  exceed  five  and  the  roof 
story. 

Here,  in  the  inner  city,  also,  the  greatest  proportion  of  the  lot 
may  be  covered  with  buildings,  three-quarters — for  corner  lots 
five-sixths.  Factories  are  allowed,  but  are  not  numerous.  Solid 
blocks  are  permitted.  The  city  here  presents  the  appearance  of 
being  fully  built  up  to  a  fairly  uniform  height. 

*  Unless  otherwise  explained,  Frankfort  wherever  used  in  Appendix  III 
means  Frankfort-on-the-Main. 

4 The  zone  regulations  are  issued  by  the  "building  police"  (see  p.  no), 
and  are  a  part  of  the  code  of  ordinances  covering  also  structural  require- 
ments, rules  with  regard  to  the  occupation  of  buildings,  and  all  other  mat- 
ters relating  to  building,  many  of  which  here  are  regulated  by  different 
authorities  and  issued  separately. 

'On  streets  less  than  about  30  feet  (9  meters)  wide,  a  height  of  about 
36  feet  (n  meters)  is  permitted. 


96 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION* 


The  outer  city  is  divided  into  an  outer,  an  inner,  and  a  country 
zone,  in  which  the  height  of  buildings  allowed  progressively  de- 
creases, and  the  amount  of  the  lot  that  must  be  left  free  of  build- 
ings progressively  increases.  In  each  of  these  zones  are  residence, 
factory  and  mixed  sections.6  In  the  residence  sections,  factories  are 
so  discouraged  as  to  be  practically  forbidden.  In  the  factory  sec- 
tions, situated  along  the  railroads,  the  harbor,  and  out  of  the  city 
in  the  direction  so  that  the  prevailing  winds  will  blow  the  smoke 
away  from  the  city,  residences  are  forbidden.7  In  the  factory  sec- 
tions, the  restrictions  on  height  and  amount  of  lot  covered  are  mild 
and  do  not  become  progressively  greater.  The  mixed  sections  are 
near  the  factory  sections,  and  there,  too,  under  certain  mild  restric- 
tions, many  sorts  of  manufacturing  are  permitted. 

In  the  residence  section  a  space  between  neighboring  houses  of 
about  10  feet  (3  meters)  in  the  inner  zone  and  a  third  more  in 
the  outer  zone  is  required.  This  is  generally  used  for  a  broad  walk 
with  green  grass  bordering  it  on  each  side  of  the  high  fence  that 
divides  the  two  lots.  Groups  of  buildings  are,  however,  allowed 
with  a  somewhat  less  proportionate  amount  of  free  space  for  the 
group  as  a  whole. 

Certain  parts  of  the  newly  added  territory  of  the  city,  beyond  all 
the  other  zones,  and  forming  a  zone  by  itself,  have  been  reserved 
for  a  villa  section  in  which  country  houses  only  are  allowed. 

In  all  these  zones  the  amount  of  the  lot  that  must  be  left  free 
progresses,  until,  in  the  villa  section,  it  is  seven-tenths  of  the  entire 
lot.  So,  also  the  permissible  height  decreases  to  about  53  feet  (16 
meters)  and  the  number  of  stories  to  two.  This  does  not  include 
the  roof  story  and  the  actual  roof,  which,  together,  in  this  zone 
must  not  exceed  about  6  feet  (1.80  meters)  in  height.  In  no  case, 
however,  may  the  house  in  this  zone  exceed  in  height,  except  for 
the  roof  story  and  roof,  the  width  of  the  street  upon  which  it  stands. 

The  building  regulations  in  Germany  are  at  best  complex.  For 
instance,  the  height  of  a  dwelling  house  is  determined  by  a  maxi- 
mum; by  the  width  of  the  street;  by  the  width  of  the  side  street 
(if  it  is  a  corner  building)  ;  by  the  distance  the  building  extends 
along  the  side  street ;  by  the  width  of  the  court ;  by  the  height  of  the 
rear  building.8  This  is  true  of  practically  all  ordinances — some 
have  many  other  provisions.  Height  is  only  one  of  many  factors — 
such  as  length,  depth,  minimum  courts  of  various  sorts,  light  angles, 
etc.  All  these  factors  vary,  both  absolutely  and  proportionally,  in 
each  zone,  and  all  must  be  included  in  any  calculation  of  house  di- 
mensions in  the  different  zones. 


*  In  many  cities  there  is  only  a  provision  establishing  a  protected  district, 
in  which  offensive  industries  cannot  be  carried  on. 

*  This  is  under  an  amendment  of  1912.  The  prohibition  of  residence  In 
the  manufacturing  section  exists  in  very  few  if  any  other  cities. 

8  The  ordinances  universally  provide  that  the  height  on  the  principal  street 
may  be  retained  on  the  side  street  for  a  certain  distance. 


GERMAN  ZONE  BUILDING  REGULATIONS 


97 


For  many  reasons  the  ordinances  are  becoming  more  and  more 
complicated.  On  the  map  of  Dresden,  for  instance,  the  building 
zones  are  kaleidoscopic.  This  is,  however,  a  complexity  growing 
apparently  out  of  the  character  of  the  city,  and  not  out  of  theoretical 
considerations.  Many  small  communities  have  from  time  to  time 
been  absorbed  by  the  great  city ;  in  them,  in  miniature,  are  the  same 
conditions  as  exist  in  Dresden  itself.  The  provisions  of  the  ordi- 
nances of  Dresden,  its  inner  and  its  progressively  outer  districts, 
must  be  applied  to  each  of  these  minor  communities.  The  result  is 
of  interest  to  us  in  New  York  as  an  application  of  zoning  to  very 
complex  conditions. 

The  complications  of  the  newest  regulation  for  Diisseldorf — 
1912 — are  of  a  somewhat  different  nature.  There,  also,  the  effort 
is  to  fit  the  zoning  provisions  to  the  actual,  or  perhaps  to  the 
desired,  conditions.  They  have,  therefore,  five  zones,  which,  to- 
gether, cover  the  entire  city.  There  are,  also,  building  classes, 
twelve  in  number.  These  classes  may  be  applied  to  any  part  of 
any  zone,  even  to  so  small  a  portion  of  it  as  a  part  of  a  street. 

The  result  of  the  class  regulations  is  usually,  but  not  always, 
to  affect  the  extent  in  height  or  area,  or  both,  of  the  use  of  the 
land,  and  therefore  the  value  of  the  territory  to  which  it  is  applied. 
That  effect  is  sometimes  to  increase,  sometimes  to  diminish,  it. 
The  classes  sometimes,  however,  simply  prescribe  the  size  or  charac- 
ter of  the  house  or  the  extent  of  the  use  of  the  house.  The  total 
result  is  to  increase  very  considerably  the  complications  which  in 
the  older  and  simpler  ordinances  were  not  small. 

This,  as  we  have  seen,  is  admitted  and  justified  on  the  ground 
that  in  this  way  the  provisions  are  made  more  closely  to  fit  the 
circumstances  and  guide  the  development.  As  the  classes  may  be 
applied  to  such  portions  of  the  zone  as  to  the  building  police  seem 
fit  at  such  times  as  they  see  fit,  and  may  from  time  to  time  be 
changed  or  abrogated,  the  building  police  are  in  this  way  given  con- 
siderable power. 

The  same  result  is  obtained  in  other  cities  by  making  for  a 
given  territory  strict  requirements  and  then  allowing  the  building 
police  to  authorize  other  methods  of  construction  when  it  seems  to 
them  best.  Thus,  in  Essen,  in  their  ordinances  of  1907,  in  Zones 
4a  and  5a  and  District  A,  only  single  houses,  20  or  more  feet  apart, 
may  "  as  a  general  rule  "  be  built ;  but  the  police  may  authorize 
double  houses,  groups,  etc.  Of  course,  practically  everybody 
applies  for  permission  to  build  double  houses  or  groups,  so  as  to 
utilize  his  land  to  the  greatest  extent  and  obtain  the  greatest  in- 
come. The  result  obtained  and  no  doubt  desired  is  that  the  authori- 
ties can  in  each  case  dictate  what  shall  be  built  and  often  the  exact 
architecture.  The  influence  of  the  authorities  is  for  simplicity  and 
a  harmony  in  the  appearance  of  the  houses  of  a  street  or  block. 
Tn  this  way  the  cost  to  the  owner  is  often  lessened  and  his  house 


98 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


made  more  valuable.  But  all  cities  do  not  have  such  men  as  Beige- 
ordneter  (vice-mayor)  Schmidt  as  architectural  dictator.11 

In  their  effort  to  fit  the  provisions  to  the  circumstances,  some 
German  cities  go  even  further.  They  have  no  zone  ordinances  at 
all — each  new  district  as  it  is  laid  out  and  streets  built  receives  its 
special  rule  for  each  street  and  house.  Thus,  Leipzig  had  in 
August,  19 1 3,  ninety-seven  districts — I  understand  they  have  more 
now — in  which  there  are  different  heights  of  buildings  and  many 
variations  as  to  the  amount  of  lot  that  may  be  covered  with  build- 
ings. 

Another  tendency  in  modern  building  ordinances  is  to  make 
rules  for  streets  in  addition  to  rules  for  districts.  It  is  recognized 
that  the  chief  business  streets  should  receive  different  treatment 
from  the  minor  business  and  residence  streets,  and  the  chief  traffic 
streets  different  treatment  from  either.  The  allowed  height  and 
the  amount  of  the  lot  allowed  to  be  covered  increases  with  the 
importance  of  the  street  and  decreases  very  greatly  the  moment  the 
principal  street  is  left  behind.  Usually  one  more  story  is  thus  per- 
mitted, and  a  considerable  portion  of  the  lot  may  be  built  over. 
This  tendency  can  be  seen  in  the  ordinances  for  Cologne  and  Diissel- 
dorf,  and  is  increasingly  emphasized  each  year.  It  was  also  intro- 
duced, in  1912,  into  the  Frankfort  ordinances. 

The  Munich  ordinance,  passed  in  1904,  goes  even  further.  It 
disregards  the  zone  or  district  system  altogether,  regulating  entirely 
by  streets  and  their  differences;  or  rather,  perhaps,  it  recognizes 
the  fact  that  streets  are  districts.  This  system  was  adopted  in  1912 
by  Karlsruhe,  where  sixteen  classes  of  streets  were  created. 

The  tendency,  however,  is  not  always  toward  greater  complexity. 
As  a  general  thing  the  earlier  ordinances  require,  in  the  successive 
zones,  districts  or  classes,  a  decrease  both  in  the  height  of  build- 
ings and  in  the  amount  of  the  lot  that  they  cover.  Many  newer 
ordinances  recognize  the  fact  that  intensity  of  use  is  the  product 
of  two  factors — height  and  amount  of  lot  covered;  and  allow,  if 
the  height  is  less,  that  more  of  the  lot  be  built  over.  There  are 
also  ordinances  which  in  part  adopt  a  rule  based  upon  the  propor- 
tion of  the  cubic  mass  of  the  building  to  the  size  of  the  lot.12 


u  For  an  instance  of  administrative  control  of  street  architecture  in  Essen, 
see  p.  100. 

1  Chemnitz,  ordinance  of  1912,  Landespolizeibezirk.  Berlin,  parts  of  Char- 
lottenburg,  Deutsch-Wilmersdorf,  Schoneberg,  Neukolln,  Lichtcnberg,  Box- 
hagen-Rummelsburg  and  Stralau,  lying  outside  Ring  railroad;  part  5  (Small 
houses).  Ordinances  of  March  26,  1912.  Suburbs  of  Berlin,  section  67 
(factories);  Ordinance  of  January  30,  1912. 

Land  owners  do  not,  in  Germany,  rely  entirely  upon  the  building  ordi- 
nances enacted  by  public  initiative.  There,  as  here,  land  is  sold  by  large 
proprietors  and  development  companies,  subject  to  severer  or  different  con- 
ditions than  those  of  the  ordinances.  The  object  there,  as  here,  is  to  create 
a  neighborhood  of  an  especially  desirable  character.  Often  these  condition! 
arc,  at  the  owners'  request,  introduced  into  the  ordinances  and  become  public 
law,  as  well  as  private  covenant    In  rare  instance*  the  proprietor  obtains 


GERMAN  ZONE  BUILDING  REGULATIONS 


99 


The  provisions  of  ordinances  which  we  have  been  examining 
are,  evidently,  utilitarian.  They  originated  chiefly  as  measures  of 
fire  protection.  The  height  allowed  was  that  to  which  water  could 
be  thrown  to  put  out  the  flames;  the  court  was  prescribed  of  such 
a  size  that  a  fire  engine  could  turn  in  it;  the  space  between  the 
houses  was  required  so  that  the  apparatus  could  reach  the  building 
in  the  rear  and  was  called  a  "  fire  lane."  Regulations  of  this 
character  are  now  retained  almost  entirely  for  a  different  reason, 
also  utilitarian — that  of  providing  light,  sun,  and  ventilation.13 

The  regulations  are  not,  however,  entirely  on  this  basis,  and 
never  were.  They  have  always  shown  a  certain  regard  for  appear- 
ances. A  wall  that  can  be  seen  from  the  street  must  be  finished 
to  some  degree  like  a  facade ;  painting  in  harsh  colors  is  forbidden. 
The  law  has  universally  and  for  many  years  forbidden  "  gross  dis- 
figurement "of  the  street ;  some  of  the  South  German  states  long 
ago  went  further;  and  many  statutes  passed  within  perhaps  six  or 
eight  years  do  the  same.14  Not  only  is  disfigurement  that  falls  short 
of  gross  now  forbidden,  but  a  certain  conformity  to  the  architec- 
ture of  the  street  may  be  required.  The  law  specifically  states, 
however,  that  the  builder  shall  not  be  put  to  any  substantial  increase 
of  expense  thereby. 

The  parts  of  the  ordinances  that  are  avowedly  utilitarian,  too, 
show  at  times  the  influence  that  artistic  considerations  have  upon 
the  people  of  Germany  and  their  rulers.  The  height  regulations, 
producing  a  uniform  sky-line,  exist  in  part  because  the  modern 
German  likes  such  a  sky-line  and  dislikes  an  exposed  party  wall. 
The  rules  with  regard  to  roofs  are  another  example.    The  roof 

the  consent  of  the  authorities  to  have  the  conditions  only  a  matter  of  public 
law,  so  that  it  will  not  be  difficult  later  to  do  away  with  these  conditions  if 
desired.  Usually,  however,  proprietors  are  afraid  to  trust  merely  the  public 
law  and  desire  to  be  protected  in  addition  by  private  covenant. 

Vienna,  by  an  interesting  and  logical  extension  of  the  principle  of  build- 
ing ordinances,  regulates  also  the  subdivision  of  land  into  building  lots,  in 
order  that  each  lot  may  be  and  remain  of  such  form  and  size  as  a  proper 
house  erected  under  the  building  regulations  requires. 

M  See  p.  no;  also  p.  114  et  seq. 

14  Prussian  Landrecht,  I,  8,  sees.  66.  71. 

So  the  Polizeistrafgesetzbuch  (police  law)  of  December  26,  1871,  Article 
101,  of  Bavaria,  provided :  "  In  the  interest  of  beauty,  building  police  pro- 
visions can  be  passed  by  local  ordinance.  Changes  in  building  plans  for  this 
reason  must  not,  however,  materially  increase  the  building  cost." 

The  Bavarian  law,  referred  to  above,  has  been  amended  as  follows : 
Law  of  May  5,  1890,  art.  8  (to  be  found  in  Gesetz-  und  Verordnungsblatt. 
p.  223). 

Law  of  June  22,  1900,  sees.  3  and  4  (same.  p.  483). 
Law  of  July  6,  1908  (same,  p.  353). 
Other  states  have  passed  laws  as  follows: 

Prussia.  Law  against  disfigurement  of  streets,  places  and  prominent 
country  objects,  of  July  15,  1907. 

Baden.  Building*  law  of  September  1.  1907.  sec.  33. 
Duchy  of  Anhalt.    Building  law  of  June  19.  1905. 

Kingdom  of  Saxony.  Law  against  disfigurement  of  city  and  country,  of 
March  10,  1909. 


100 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


story,  with  dwelling  or  storage  rooms  in  it,  is  almost  universal. 
This  is  because  the  ordinances  allow  a  certain  height  and  number 
of  stories,  plus  an  ample  roof  besides ;  and  the  builder,  to  gain  the 
additional  rentable  space,  invariably  builds  an  ample  roof  as  he  is 
encouraged  to  do.  This,  although  not  the  origin  of  roof  stories, 
is  given  in  Germany  as  the  principal  reason  for  their  retention ; 
for  the  German  loves  a  large  roof,  and  it  is  thus  obtained  at  no 
increase  of  expense  to  the  builder  or  land  owner. 

The  ordinances  universally  allow  projections  in  the  interest  of 
variety.  These  projections  may  be  into  the  street,  or  into  the  front 
or  side  or  rear  spaces  required  by  law ;  or  above  the  height  limit. 
They  are  strictly  limited  both  in  amount  of  projection  and  extent 
of  cubic  space. 

Much  has  been  done  in  the  cause  of  beauty  by  continental  cities 
at  public  expense.  Not  only  are  beautiful  public  buildings  erected, 
and  given  suitable  site  and  setting,  but  in  the  sale  to  private  indi- 
viduals of  the  extensive  lands  belonging  to  them  cities  impose 
servitudes  to  secure  correspondence  and  harmony  for  an  entire 
street  or  square.  Many  of  the  features  we  admire  in  Vienna  are 
thus  obtained.  Paris  has  done  more  by  this  method  than  any  other 
city  and  from  the  most  ancient  times.15 

Germany  by  administrative  methods  does  much  to  induce  and 
compel  private  builders  to  respect  and  produce  a  harmonious  "  street 
picture  "  as  well  as  to  secure  tasteful  single  houses.  There  exist 
in  many  Prussian  cities  departments  called  "  Bureaus  of  Building 
Advice  " ;  and  there  are  similar  departments,  under  other  names, 
in  most  of  the  states.  To  these  bureaus  builders  are  required  to 
submit  their  plans.  Improvements  are  merely  indicated  by  the 
bureau — care  is  taken  not  to  interfere  with  the  business  of  the 
architects.  Both  tact  and  compulsion  are  used  in  varying  degrees 
in  different  cities. 

A  story  illustrating  methods  sometimes  employed  is  told  of 
Beigeordneter  Schmidt  of  Essen.  A  builder — so  the  story  goes — 
submitted  the  sketch  of  a  facade  to  Schmidt  and  asked  for  a  per- 
mit to  erect  the  house.  Now  in  Essen,  as  in  most  of  Prussia,  no 
man  may  build  upon  an  unfinished  street  without  express  permission 
of  the  authorities ;  and  in  practice  no  street  is  ever  legally  finished 
until  the  last  house  on  it  is  built.  The  result  is  that  the  discretion 
of  the  authorities  to  allow  a  given  house  to  be  erected  is  uncontrolled. 
Schmidt  looked  at  the  facade  and  saw  that  it  was  bad — bad  in  itself 
and  utterly  out  of  harmony  with  the  street  picture  which  Schmidt 
had  been  so  carefully  creating.  Now  it  so  happened — not  to  put  it 
too  bluntly — that  the  street  upon  which  the  builder  wished  to  erect 
the  house  still  lacked  an  infinitesimal  bit  of  curbing;  and  Schmidt, 
turning  to  the  builder,  said :    11  I'm  sorry ;  the  street  isn't  finished." 

"For  a  list  of  servitudes  with  date,  text,  drawings,  etc.,  see  Recueil 
d'Actes  Administratifs  et  de  Conventions  relatifs  aux  Servitudes  Specialej 
d'Architccture.  Paris.  Imprimerie  Xouvelle.  11  Rue  Cadet,  1905. 


GERMAN  ZONE  BUILDING  REGULATIONS 


IOI 


After  waiting  a  month  the  builder  applied  again,  only  to  be  met 
with  the  answer  "  the  street  is  still  unfinished." 

Then  he  began  to  complain,  loudly,  and  all  over  town,  until  a 
friend  took  him  aside  and  whispered  in  his  ear :  "  You  fool ;  give 
him  a  decent  facade  and  the  street  will  be  finished."  And  it  was ; 
and  the  plan,  after  a  few  suggestions  from  the  Bureau  of  Building 
Advice,  was  approved,  and  a  building  permit  issued. 

The  "  unfinished  street "  is  by  no  means  the  only  "  hold  "  the 
German  official  has ;  and  this  power  is  often  used  in  the  interest  of 
beauty.  In  Essen  the  result  is  one  of  great  harmony  and  good 
taste,  often  obtained  at  a  saving  to  the  builder,  who,  for  instance, 
is  persuaded  to  sacrifice  some  bit  of  ugly,  useless,  expensive  orna- 
mentation. Schmidt  still  shows  in  his  city-planning  lectures  a  house 
of  some  time  ago  so  decorated,  which,  he  says,  the  builders  of  Essen 
now  beg  him  not  to  exhibit  any  longer,  because  they  "  don't  build 
that  way  any  more." 

In  some  cities  the  zone  boundary  is  in  the  center  of  the  street, 
in  some  in  the  middle  of  the  block.  The  expedients  for  softening  the 
transition  from  one  zone  to  another  are  many.  In  Essen  the  zone 
divisions  run  through  the  center  of  the  street,  but  the  houses  in  the 
zone  of  less  intensity  may  be  built  to  the  same  height  as  the  houses 
on  the  other  side  of  the  street,  the  percentage  of  the  lot  to  be  cov- 
ered remaining  subject  to  the  rule  of  the  zone  in  which  the  buildings 
are  situated.  In  the  new  ordinances  for  Cologne  intermediate  zones 
are  in  many  cases  introduced  to  make  the  passage  less  abrupt. 
Sometimes  a  natural  or  historical  boundary,  such  as  a  river,  the  old 
city  walls,  turned  into  boulevards,  the  Ring-railroad  in  Berlin,  are 
used ;  or  a  broad  street  with  trees  is  planned,  thus  creating  an  easy 
transition.  Often  no  such  device  is  considered  possible.  The  bor- 
der line  is  recognized  to  be  a  difficulty. 

Regulation  in  favor  of  light,  air  and  sun  is  regarded  as  neces- 
sary, not  alone  in  residence  but  in  business  apartments  and  rooms. 
The  ordinances  invariably  make  this  requirement  applicable  to  all 
rooms  for  the  continued  occupation  of  mankind.16 

The  effort  is  made,  as  a  rule,  to  encourage  neighboring  builders 
so  to  construct  their  buildings  as  to  throw  their  courts  and  yards 
together;  and  a  slightly  less  court  space  is  allowed  on  a  builder's 
own  land  if  their  common  use  for  light  and  air  for  all  is  secured 
by  agreement  of  record  to  which  the  public  authorities  are  a  party. 

This  system  I  have  outlined  we  are  accustomed  to  call  the  zone 
system.  We  have  seen  that  in  many  cases  the  zones  are  really  dis- 
tricts, and  that  for  this  reason  the  name  is  not  quite  correct.  The 
tendency  in  Germany  to  regulate  by  streets,  as  we  have  seen,  has 

"A  series  of  reports  of  the  Prefecture  of  the  Seine  (Direction  of  Mu- 
nicipal Affairs;  Bureau  of  Hygiene  for  Paris),  issued  in  1007,  1908  (two 
reports),  1909,  1910,  191 1  and  1912  (Imprimerie  Chaix,  rue  Bergere,  20),  and 
covering  the  years  1894  to  1912,  shows  the  connection  between  tuberculosis 
and  high  buildings  and  small  courts;  and  between  tuberculosis  and  the  place 
of  work. 


102 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


rendered  the  name  still  more  inaccurate.  To-day  Germany  is  more 
apt  to  speak  of  the  "  graduated  "  ("Staffer  or  "abgestufte")  ordi- 
nances and  point  out  that  the  regulations  are  graded  in  their  re- 
quirements as  to  density  of  population ;  as  to  intensity  of  industrial 
use ;  as  to  size  or  character  of  streets,  etc. — all  in  steps  or  degrees, 
but  not  at  all  in  zones,  or  exactly  in  districts.17  So  the  density  or 
size  of  house  in  proportion  to  lot  is  graded,  but  by  streets.  So  the 
industrial  use  of  land  is  varied — in  places  all  industries  being  per- 
mitted, in  some  only  those  having  no  disagreeable  sound  or  smell, 
in  some  only  the  smaller  industries,  in  some  none  at  all ;  so  streets 
vary  from  chief  traffic  and  business  streets  all  the  way  to  small  res- 
idence streets,  not  exactly  by  districts  but  rather  by  use  or  character. 

The  zone  system  has  been  introduced  gradually.  In  some  cities 
it  is  quite  recent.  It  is  still  easy  to  talk  with  the  men  who  drew  and 
secured  the  adoption  of  zone  provisions  in  some  of  them. 

It  is  recognized  as  necessary  in  such  cases  that  land  values  shall 
be  respected,  and  no  regulations  adopted  that  shall  make  it  impos- 
sible for  an  owner  to  build  upon  his  land  a  building  which  will  pay 
a  fair  return  upon  that  value.18  Often  many  temporary  provisions 
are  adopted  to  prevent  such  a  loss.  This  is  sometimes  done  by 
allowing  new  buildings  in  certain  cases  to  be  rebuilt  for  a  certain 
length  of  time  to  the  old  height  or  to  the  old  surface  or  cubic  con- 
tent. More  often  there  is  a  provision  for  the  granting  of  licenses 
to  erect  in  disregard  of  certain  provisions  of  the  ordinance,  as,  for 
instance,  in  cases  where  lots  are  especially  narrow  or  shallow  or 
for  other  reasons  a  profitable  building  could  not  otherwise  be  built.1* 

What  is  the  effect  of  the  zone  system  upon  German  cities — 
upon  living  and  business  conditions,  upon  the  price  of  land  and  upon 
rents?  This  is  what  we  want  to  know  and  shall  find  difficult  to 
ascertain  and  state.  The  zone  ordinances  are  a  part  only  of  the  city- 
planning  ordinances  and  practice,  and  city  planning  is  only  one  of 
many  factors  in  city  life.  Administration,  too,  has  a  very  consid- 
erable influence.  Let  us  first,  therefore,  see  what  has  occurred, 
without  trying  in  every  case  to  treat  zoning  as  a  separate  factor ; 
and  then  let  us  try  to  estimate  its  importance  and  effect. 

Many  of  the  features  of  German  cities — the  parks,  the  boule- 
vards, the  wide  streets — are  due  to  the  city  plan.  The  building  reg- 
ulations are  responsible  for  the  fact  that  upon  the  building  lots  them- 
selves, as  the  street  plan  creates  them,  there  is  less  concentration, 
less  congestion.  The  zone  system  by  exacting  progressively  less 
height  and  more  free  space  as  the  centers  are  more  and  more  left 
behind  increases  greatly  this  characteristic.  The  advantages  are 
very  great.  The  average  amount  of  light  and  air  is  high,  and  special 
districts  of  great  congestion  are  avoided  to  a  much  greater  extent 

Staffel"  is  South  German  dialect  for  "Stufe"  (step)  and  the  South 
German  points  to  the  fact  as  proof  that  the  modification  originated  there. 

"This  is  not  always  true  of  changes  of  ordinance,  or  land  not  upon  any 
street.    See  p.  113. 

"As  to  licenses,  see  p.  tit. 


GERMAN  ZONE  BUILDING  REGULATIONS 


IO3 


than  in  this  country.  The  fact  that  all  these  advantages  are  so 
obvious  and  need  so  little  comment  must  not  lead  us  to  give  them  the 
less  weight. 

Some  of  the  disadvantages,  too,  are  apparent.  A  city  widely 
spread  out  has  longer  streets,  but  the  streets  have  only  the  same 
amount  of  use  spread  over  their  greater  extent,  and  might  often 
be  narrower  or  at  least  have  less  surface  expensively  finished  for 
traffic.  This  is  too  little  remembered  in  Germany,  and  the  result  is 
higher  cost  for  abutters  and  taxpayers  and  higher  land  prices  and 
rents.  But  traffic  streets  and  residential  streets  are  being  more  and 
more  differentiated,  the  former  being  of  ample  breadth,  the  latter 
much  narrower.  German  cities  are  not,  however,  more  decentralized 
as  a  rule  than  ours,  and  this  is  because  the  city  does  not  as  a  general 
thing  lay  out  a  street  until  such  time  as  it  is  needed  for  buildings, 
in  solid  continuation  of  the  existing  city. 

The  building  and  zone  regulations  have  increased  street  costs  in 
another  way.  In  most  cities  more  or  less  considerable  portions  are 
laid  out  under  the  rule  that  a  space  must?  be  maintained  between  the 
building  and  the  boundary  of  the  lot,  varying  from  3  meters  (about 
10  feet)  to  as  much  as  8  or  10  meters.  Under  the  zone  regulations 
this  side  space  is  at  a  minimum  in  the  inner  zone  and  increases  pro- 
gressively. That  this  gives  light  and  air  and  also  increases  the 
length  of  the  street  fronts  and  the  sewers,  gas  pipes,  water  pipes, 
etc.,  at  the  expense  of  the  abutter  and  with  an  increase  in  land 
prices,  is  obvious.20 

In  general,  and  aside  from  these  obvious  influences  of  the  zone 
regulations,  what  is  their  effect  upon  land  prices? 

In  Germany  restrictions  on  intensity  of  building  are  advocated, 

3U  The  result  of  this  side  space  system  upon  the  character  of  building 
varies  as  the  character  of  the  development  does.  In  a  fashionable  neighbor- 
hood or  a  middle-class  neighborhood  quite  in  the  suburbs  it  has  not  affected 
the  form  of  the  buildings  unfavorbly  or  had  any  generally  recognized  and 
conceded  disadvantages  whatever.  Where,  however,  the  side  space  require- 
ment has  been  made  in  the  more  crowded  parts  of  the  city,  where  land  is 
dearer,  it  is  generally  thought  to  have  produced  deep  buildings,  rear  build- 
ings, lonj*  ells,  side  wings — all  without  a  sufficient  increase  in  light  and  air 
on  the  sides.  The  total  result,  therefore,  by  substituting  narrow  caverns 
between  the  houses  for  abundance  of  free  space  back  of  them  is  regarded 
as  bad.  The  modern  building  ordinances  are  therefore  using  side  space 
requirements  very  much  less,  and  not  at  all,  unless  the  space  that  may  be 
required  is  ample.  Thus,  double  houses  and  groups  of  houses  are  often 
allowed  with  certain  restrictions  and  positive  requirements,  even  where  a 
side  space  zone  or  class  exists;  and  a  front  garden  space  or  a  rear  building 
line  so  drawn  as  to  leave  the  entire  interior  of  a  block  in  one  open  space  is 
substituted;  a  break  or  two  for  the  passage  of  air  through  the  block  being 
regarded  as  highly  desirable  and  required  in  many  cases. 

These  changes  in  ordinance  are  partly  to  cheapen  and  encourage  the  build- 
ing of  single  houses;  or  more  often  of  houses  for  small  dwellings,  as  houses 
in  which  more  than  one  family  live  and  the  number  and  size  of  the  rooms  are 
small  are  called  in  Germany.  These  ordinances  are  not  made  to  encourage 
or  allow  the  "tenement  barrack"  or  large  tenement  house,  as  the  older  ordi- 
nances certainly  did.  The  result  is  to  lessen  the  side  space  requirements 
and  decentralization. 


104  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

as  a  general  thing,  for  the  express  reason  that  they  keep  down  land 
values.    Do  they?   All  Germany  is  fighting  over  the  question.21 

The  effect  of  limitation  on  the  height  of  buildings  or  the  amount 
of  the  lot  that  may  be  covered  by  them  seems  to  me  scarcely  to 
merit  philosophical  discussion  in  such  profound  terms  as  are  used 
in  Germany,  or  mathematical  formulae  of  such  length.  It  is  clear 
that  if  on  Lot  A  I  may  build  four  stories,  and  on  Lot  B  only  two, 
Lot  A,  other  things  being  equal,  will  be  worth  more,  since  it  will 
bring  in  a  greater  income.  Things  are  by  no  means  always  equal 
in  Germany;  the  two-story  districts  are  created  for  people  who 
want  separate  houses  and  are  able  to  pay  accordingly ;  or  else  they 
are  farther  out  where  land  is  always  used  less  intensely.  But 
assuming  that  we  fix  by  our  regulation  the  relative  prices  of  Lots 
A  and  B,  we  have  not  determined  the  basis  for  their  absolute  price. 
This  level  is  fixed  by  supply  and  demand  as  a  whole.  By  cutting 
off  two  stories  in  one  part  of  town  you  have  not  decreased  the  need 
of  dwelling  in  the  town  as  a  whole.  These  stories  or  their  equiva- 
lent must  have  some  foundation  to  rest  upon ;  if  they  cannot  be 
placed  on  top  of  another  building,  they  must  be  built  upon  the 
ground  and  probably  farther  from  the  center.  The  total  demand 
remains  the  same,  and  more  land  is  needed  to  satisfy  it.  Thus, 
outlying  land  is  more  quickly  marketed.  In  this  way.  land  owners 
as  a  body  are  perhaps  rather  benefited  than  injured,  for  carrying 
charges  which  so  often  turn  profit  into  loss  are  saved.  Regula- 
tions limiting  the  amount  of  the  lot  that  may  be  covered  and 
requiring  given  amounts  of  land  to  be  open  for  access  of  sun  and 
air  would  evidently  have  the  same  effect  as  limitations  on  the 
height  of  buildings.  The  same  reasoning  applies  to  business  prop- 
erty, except  that  there  a  larger  degree  of  concentration  is  needed 
for  business  convenience.22 

There  is  often  a  financial  gain  through  regulation  to  both  land 
owners  and  purchasers.  In  so  far  as  the  factory  by  intruding  upon 
the  residence  injures  the  residence  without  benefiting  itself  there 
is  mere  waste.  In  so  far  as  the  character  of  localities  is  preserved, 
destruction  and  rebuilding  are  rendered  unnecessary.  Both  these 
results  have  apparently  been  in  a  measure  attained,  for  instance,  in 
Frankfort.  And  it  is  an  interesting  fact  that  average  residence, 
factory  and  mixed  district  property  in  Frankfort  the  same  distance 
from  the  center  are  of  about  the  same  value.  Business  locations 
in  the  heart  of  the  old  city  are  often  of  course  much  higher  than 
either.  As  a  general  thing  the  relative  prices  of  land  are  affected 
at  once  by  a  change  from  one  zone  to  another.  This  is  shown 
clearly  in  Berlin,  where  a  series  of  land  value  maps — the  Miiller 
maps — are  issued. 

Where,  however,  concentration  has  reached  a  certain  point, 
newer  and  stricter  regulations  have  not,  in  my  opinion,  injured  real 


11  As  to  land  values,  sec  also  n.  112. 
"  Thirl. 


MAP  XIX— DISTRICTING   IX  MUNICH. 


GERMAN  ZONE  BUILDING  REGULATIONS  105 

estate  values.  There  is  undoubtedly  a  tendency  to  reckon  value 
and  rental  by  cubage — especially,  perhaps,  where  a  new  restriction 
is  proposed.  But  light  and  air  have  a  well-established  market 
value.  In  some  of  the  central  and  older  parts  of  Berlin  undue  con- 
centration and  consequent  lack  of  these  necessities  have,  apparently, 
hindered  the  growth  of  real  estate  values  and  rentals  relatively  to 
other  parts  of  this  central  and  very  valuable  district,  and  the  new 
regulations  requiring  more  open  space  upon  reconstruction  have 
not  checked  the  rise  here  of  values,  much  less  lowered  them.  The 
newer  buildings  also  rent  with  sufficiently  greater  readiness  and 
increase  of  rent  to  more  than  pay  for  the  loss  of  area  that  may  be 
built  over. 

There  is  in  Germany  a  "  Protective  League  of  Land  and  House 
Owners,"  with  headquarters  in  Berlin  and  branches  or  affiliations 
throughout  Germany.23  Many  changes  in  ordinances  are  strongly 
opposed  by  the  league.24  Relative  to  this  change,  however,  I  have 
the  opinion  of  one  of  the  founders  of  the  league,  who  is  well  in- 
formed and  would  be  likely  to  be  conservative  in  these  matters, 
that  the  stricter  regulations  for  central  Berlin,  now  several  years 
old,  have  not  injured  land  owners  in  this  part  of  town  as  a  whole 
or  the  individual  land  owners  who  have  been  compelled  to  rebuild 
in  accordance  with  their  terms.  I  also  was  told  by  an  officer  of  the 
league  in  Cologne  that  the  newer  and  more  generously  planned 
parts  of  the  city  were  competing  so  strongly  with  the  older  parts 
that  land  values  had  fallen  there.  This  is  suggestive  to  us  in  New 
York,  where  concentration,  in  places,  has  gone  so  far  beyond  any- 
thing in  Germany;  and  yet  our  average  density  is  less  than  theirs. 

What  effect  has  the  zone  system  on  business,  living  conditions 
and  rents?  We  have  already  considered  the  obvious  advantages 
of  light  and  air,  so  important  and  so  quickly  and  simply  stated. 
Manufacturing  interests  do  not  complain.  Business  men  object  to 
some  of  the  rules  with  regard  to  occupation  of  buildings  and  their 
use.  In  Berlin  the  Protective  League  complains,  for  instance,  that 
the  prohibitions  against  the  business  and  residence  use  of  roof 
stories  is  often  wasteful  and  extreme.  It  seems  strange  to  allow 
the  roof  stories  to  be  built  and  then  forbid  any  proper  use  of  them. 
One  suspects  the  German  in  this  case  of  an  undue  respect  for  de- 
centralization as  a  mere  matter  of  statistics,  especially  as  the  roof 
story  usually  has  an  attic  or  other  air  space  over  it.  The  German 
would  think  a  condition  of  things,  however,  under  which  his  light 
and  air  could  be  taken  away  by  a  sky-scraper  across  the  street 
unbearable.  At  present,  in  German  cities,  business  as  well  as  resi- 
dence districts  are  low.  The  maximum  in  Berlin,  for  instance,  is 
five  stories.  There  is  a  movement  to  allow  higher  buildings  in  the 
purely  business  districts.  Such  districts  as  yet  hardly  exist.  There 
are  only  isolated  houses  and  parts  of  streets  in  which  there  are 

MA  similar  organization  exists  in  Vienna. 
"See  p.  113. 


io6 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


business  buildings  in  which  no  people  live ;  but  the  number  is  in- 
creasing. It  seems  certain  that  no  such  movement  will  be  success- 
ful in  the  immediate  future,  and  even  the  proposed  changes,  so  far 
as  they  are  practically  made,  go  no  further  than  suggesting  the 
allowance  of  one  more  story,  perhaps  on  corners  or  opposite  open 
places. 

There  are  many  modifications  and  adaptations  permitted  for 
business  buildings.  For  instance,  the  required  court  may  in  Berlin 
be  roofed  over  to  the  height  of  the  first  story-  and  to  half  its  extent; 
other  cities  allow  even  more. 

The  complaint  is  made  all  over  Germany  that  there  are  so  few 
single  houses,  and  that  the  German  must  live  in  large  tenement  and 
apartment  houses.  This  is  caused  partly  at  least  by  the  building 
regulations,  which  are  to  a  great  extent  the  same  for  large  and 
small  houses.  The  result  is  that  the  small  house  is  made  unneces- 
sarily expensive.  The  ordinances  require :  too  high  rooms ;  too 
strong  construction ;  too  wide  and  dear  stairs ;  too  thick  walls ;  too 
expensive  sewer  and  street  construction ;  too  expensive  fire  pro- 
tection. 

There  is  a  tendency  to  insert  in  the  ordinances  modifications  in 
these  respects  in  favor  of  the  small  house,  but  it  is  not  general  or 
far-reaching  enough.  There  is  also  a  tendency  to  allow  double 
houses  and  groups,  in  the  case  of  small  houses,  more  freely  than 
in  other  cases.  The  danger  and  bad  effects  of  uniform  require- 
ments for  small  and  large  houses  are  not  unknown  to  us. 

It  has  been  impossible  for  me  to  see  how  zone  regulations  prop- 
erly drawn  discriminate  against  the  small  or  the  single  house.  The 
discriminations  in  Germany  seem  to  be  clear  mistakes  which  the 
Germans  are  seeing  and  remedying.  The  system  does,  however, 
uniformly  and  universally  bring  about  less  congestion  and  more 
light  and  air. 

In  the  matter  of  rent  paid  and  accommodations  obtained,  it  may 
at  first  seem  a  simple  matter  to  compare  Germany  and  other  nations. 
I  do  not  know,  however,  of  any  such  comparison  that  is  at  all  com- 
plete or  reliable.  It  is  my  impression  that  the  Berlin  workmen  pay 
less  absolutely  and  in  percentage  of  income  than  in  Vienna,  which 
is  zoned,25  and  in  Paris,  which  is  not  j26  and  that  he  is  better  housed 

14  Vienna  fixes  a  limit  of  height  of  buildings  to  the  cornice  of  25  meters. 
In  dwellings,  only  five  stories  are  allowed  for  residence;  but  cellar  dwellings 
are  permitted  to  a  certain  extent  and  two  cellars  for  many  other  purposes. 
The  ground  floor  also  may  be  divided.    Studios  too  are  allowed  in  the  roof. 

At  least  15  per  cent  of  the  lot  must  be  left  uncovered,  with  certain 
exceptions. 

These  are  the  conditions  of  the  innermost  zone.  The  ordinance  does  not 
provide  for  zones,  except  that  it  is  held  to  give  the  authorities  large  adminis- 
trative power.  Under  this  power  Vienna,  in  fact,  is  completely  zoned,  height 
being  regulated  with  relation  to  the  width  of  the  street.  The  authorities 
have  for  20  years  been  attempting  to  pass  a  new  ordinance.  The  drafts 
provide  for  a  zone  system. 

"  Paris  also  regulates  the  height  of  its  buildings  with  relation  to  the  width 


GERMAN  ZONE  BUILDING  REGULATIONS 


10/ 


than  the  workmen  in  either  city.  These  conditions  depend  upon  so 
many  causes  that  any  such  comparison  is  of  very  little  value  as  a 
factor  in  any  judgment  upon  the  zone  system.  The  only  way  in 
which  the  essentials  of  the  system  can  affect  rents  is  through  the 
price  of  land — if  indeed  rents  can  be  so  affected.  We  have  seen 
that  it  cannot  with  any  positiveness  be  said  that  the  zoning  system 
does  increase  land  prices.27 

A  very  real  objection  to  the  building  regulations  that  zoning  in- 
creases is  the  extreme  complexity  thereby  created.  To  this  refer- 
ence has  already  been  made  (page  96).  This  splitting  up  of  land 
would,  it  would  seem  to  me,  make  land  less  available  and  marketable. 
I  have  not  found  any  proof  of  this  in  Germany.  There  are,  how- 
ever, obvious  bad  effects  of  this  complexity.  An  architect  must 
devote  his  greatest  study  to  the  question  how  by  a  proper  combina- 
tion of  the  various  complexities,  often  contradictory,  he  can  get  the 
most  building  on  a  given  lot  in  a  given  situation  on  a  given  street, 
in  a  given  zone  or  class.  The  unscrupulous  architect  devotes  him- 
self to  the  problem  of  cheating  the  ordinance;  and  subsequent 
changes  in  their  details  prove  that  he  is  at  times  successful.  Never- 
theless, and  with  all  study  and  effort,  there  can  be  no  certainty  that 
there  has  been  secured  that  fullest  use  and  profit  out  of  the  land 
which  every  owner  is  seeking  for.28 

The  complications  do  not  produce  much  litigation.  Whatever 
difficulties  occur  are  generally  disposed  of  by  administrative 
methods.  The  building  inspector  has  great  power  and  in  case  of 
appeals  is  seldom  overruled.  In  Berlin  the  inspectors  hold  weekly 
meetings  and  discuss  and  settle  doubtful  questions  in  the  ordinances. 
A  change  of  opinion  in  these  meetings  is  often  equivalent  to  a 
change  in  the  law. 

This  complexity  has  also  led,  as  we  have  seen,  to  the  provision 
in  all  the  ordinances  for  granting  permits  to  be  relieved  of  provi- 
sions of  the  ordinance.29  Many  of  the  permits  might,  it  would  seem 
to  me,  be  reduced  to  administrative  orders;  but  builders,  architects 
and  officials  are  unanimous  in  saying  that  this  is  not  true  at  all,  and 
that  special  permits  and  a  considerable  latitude  in  the  granting  of 
them  is  absolutely  essential  to  prevent  most  unfortunate  results.  A 
simplification  of  the  ordinances  would  certainly  reduce  such  a  neces- 
sity to  a  minimum  if  it  did  not  overcome  it  altogether,  and  would 
probably  render  such  changes  in  ordinances  which  are  now  frequent 
less  necessary.  It  would  seem,  too,  as  if  a  simple  ordinance  might 
be  so  drawn  as  to  make  the  total  cubage  of  building  on  the  lot  clear 
and  definite.  If  the  architect  and  builder,  as  well  as  the  owner, 
knew  that,  with  all  his  calculation,  only  a  given  cubage  could  be 

of  its  streets  and  by  a  maximum  of  20  meters.    Mansard  and  roof  are 
limited  by  an  angle.    There  are  also  minimum  courts. 
31  See  p.  102  et  seq. 

28 The  Berlin  Ordinances,  etc.  (with  drawings). 
"As  to  licenses,  see  p.  ill. 


108  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

obtained,  evasion  of  the  ordinance  and  clever  manipulation  of  it 
would  be  robbed  of  all  reward.  Thus,  many  of  the  provisions  of 
the  ordinances,  most  making  for  complication  and  many  of  the 
most  frequent  causes  for  changes  in  ordinances,  would  be  done 
away  with,  and  thus  ordinances  much  and  permanently  simplified. 
This  is  especially  important  in  zoning  ordinances,  as  each  variation 
of  zone  means  complications,  not  only  more  numerous  but  more 
complex  by  the  added  zone  features  and  variations  of  the  regulation. 

The  underlying  principle  of  the  zone  system  is  that  building 
regulations,  to  be  effective,  must  be  progressive.  A  great  and  con- 
stantly increasing  majority  of  German  cities  have  adopted  that 
principle.  It  varies  in  different  cities ;  criticism  of  its  details  and 
administration  is  widespread;  its  final  form  in  Germany  is  still  un- 
certain ;  but  of  the  principle  there  is  practically  no  criticism.  It  is 
regarded  as  the  only  possible  method  of  obtaining  results  of  value. 

GERMAN  LAW  AND  ADMINISTRATION 
i.    City  Planning  and  Home  Rule 

Germany,  like  the  United  States,  is  a  federal  government.  The 
construction  of  cities  is  almost  exclusively  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  separate  states.  The  only  imperial  statute  of  importance  is 
the  Reichsgewerbegesetz  (Imperial  Business  Law)  of  June  21, 
1869,  as  amended  from  time  to  time,  under  certain  sections  of  which 
(see  sec.  16;  also  17  to  27,  49,  147)  a  special  permit  may  be  re- 
quired for  the  erection  of  factories  which  are  noisy  or  emit  a  dis- 
agreeable smell,  excessive  smoke,  etc.  It  was  decided  in  Prussia, 
in  1889,  by  the  Ober-Verwaltungs  Gericht  (Upper  Administrative 
Court),  volume  18,  page  302  (No.  46),  that  this  statute  did  not 
deprive  the  states  or  cities  of  the  power  to  require  permits,  or  limit 
them  in  their  regulation  of  such  industries,  whether  more  or  less 
severe,  and  whether  by  zones  or  otherwise.  This  was  one  of  the 
first  decisions  in  Germany  upholding  zoning. 

No  doubt  the  law,  and  certainly  the  practice,  with  regard  to 
state  and  city  regulations  in  these  matters  is  the  same  in  other 
states  as  it  is  in  Prussia. 

The  extent  to  which  cities  in  the  matter  of  their  construction  are 
self-governing  is  a  matter  of  state  law,  and  varies  in  the  different 
states. 

Some  matters  are  universally  regulated  by  law,  or  royal  order, 
uniformly  for  the  entire  state.  Thus,  Prussia  has  its  Bauflucht- 
liniengcsctz  (building  line  statute)  of  July  2,  1875,  generally  called 
in  English,  town  or  city  planning  law.  It  treats  not  only  of  build- 
ing and  street  lines,  but  of  expropriation,  of  street  costs  and  their 
payment,  and  other  matters.  Other  states,  such  as  Wuerttemberg 
(Building  Ordinance  of  July  28,  1910),  Saxony  (General  Building 
Law  of  July  1,  1900,  as  amended  May  20,  1904),  Hessen  (Gesetz 
betreffend  die  allgemeinc  Bauordnung — Law  relating  to  General 


GERMAN  ZONE  BUILDING  REGULATIONS  IOO, 

Building  Ordinance — of  May  27,  1881),  Brunswick  (Gesetz  betref- 
fend  Bauordnung — Law  relating  to  Building  Ordinance — of 
March  13,  1899),  and  Anhalt  (Building  Ordinance  of  July  19, 
1905,  to  be  found  in  Anhalt  Gesetz  Sammlung — Collected  Laws — 
No.  1226),  by  statute,  and  Bavaria  (Building  Ordinance  of  Feb- 
ruary 17,  1901,  August  3,  1910),  and  Baden  (State  Building  Ordi- 
nance of  September,  1907),  by  royal  order,  have  regulations  uni- 
form for  the  entire  state,  containing  not  only  these  matters,  but 
also  very  general  building  regulations,  leaving  it  to  the  cities,  to 
some  extent,  to  pass  additional  building  regulations.  All  the  states 
issue  orders,  in  general  form,  for  the  construction  or  occupancy  of 
public  buildings,  such  as  schoolhouses,  and  semi-public  ones,  such 
as  theaters.  The  cities  universally  have  a  greater  or  less  measure 
of  home  rule  in  the  matter  of  the  regulation  of  city  construction. 
City  planning  proper  under  the  state  law  or  regulation  is  almost 
universally  regulated  and  carried  out  by  the  cities  themselves. 
Building  or  zoning  regulations  are  issued  sometimes  by  officials  of 
the  state,  as  in  Berlin ;  sometimes  by  a  city  official,  like  the  Biirgo- 
meister,  but  under  state  orders  and  control,  as  in  Cologne;  some- 
times by  city  officials,  as  in  Frankfort-on-the-Main,  and,  generally, 
in  South  Germany.  In  Vienna  the  building  regulations  also  are 
state  law. 

Some  of  the  free  cities,  such  as  Bremen  and  Hamburg,  are 
both  states  and  cities. 

Home  rule  for  cities  does  not,  however,  mean  quite  the  same  in 
Germany  as  it  does  (or  would,  if  we  had  it)  in  America.  The  build- 
ing code  of  ordinances  is  universally  subject  to  the  approval  of 
the  administrative  authorities  appointed  by  the  ruler  of  the  state; 
the  city  officials  having  charge  of  these  matters  are  partly  or  en- 
tirely subject  to  similar  confirmation  (which,  however,  is  very 
rarely  refused).  The  administrative  acts  of  these  city  officials  are 
also  in  these  matters,  as  in  many  others,  subject  to  appeal  to  the 
state  administrative  officials  or  bodies,  also  appointed  wholly  or 
partly  by  the  ruler  of  the  state. 

2.    Divided  Authority 

Thus,  by  law  in  many  cases,  the  making  and  executing  of  the 
city  plans,  and  the  issuing  and  enforcing  of  the  regulations  for 
building  under  it  are  in  charge  of  different  officials ;  and  as  a  matter 
of  practice  these  powers  are  not  united  where  this  is  permissible. 
Essen  is  an  exception — a  bright  and  shining  one. 

This  division  has  generally,  and  rightly  I  believe,  come  to  be 
regarded  as  unfortunate.  A  one-family  house  calls  for  a  one-family 
house  lot.  A  manufacturing  district  must  be  both  planned  and 
regulated  with  that  aim  in  view.  It  is  difficult  to  secure  this  unity 
under  divided  administration. 


I  IO 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


3.    The  Building  Police,  and  the  "  Police  Power  " 

The  body  which  issues  and  executes  building  regulations  is 
called  "  building  police."  There  are  many  other  kinds  of  police  in 
Germany — for  instance,  Fire,  Health,  and  Charity,  as  well  as 
Safety,  Police,  as  "  police  99  in  the  popular  use  of  the  term  with  us 
are  there  called. 

The  power  of  the  "  building  police  "  to  issue  building  regula- 
tions has  a  different  basis  in  the  various  states.  In  Prussia  it  is 
founded  in  large  part  upon  two  very  general  statutes  giving  them 
power  to  provide  for  and  protect  the  public  health,  order  and 
safety,  and  their  upper  courts  limit  and  interpret  the  power  very 
much  as  our  courts  would  under  similar  circumstances.30  In  other 
states,  as  a  general  thing,  it  is  founded  upon  statutes  which  give 
the  building  police  wider  powers  and  define  them  more  explicitly. 

Zone  building  regulations  had  not  been  issued  in  Germany  to 
any  extent  until  1891. 

The  first  decision,  or  at  least  one  of  the  very  early  decisions, 
upholding  such  regulations  was  rendered  by  the  Prussian  Oberver- 
waltungsgericht  (Supreme  Administrative  Court)  in  1894  (volume 
26,  page  323,  of  their  reports).  It  was  with  regard  to  a  zone 
building  ordinance,  for  a  part  of  the  suburbs  of  Berlin,  of  Decem- 
ber 3,  1892.  (See  Amtsblatt  der  Regierung  zu  Potsdam  of  Decem- 
ber 10,  1892,  for  the  ordinance,  which  has  since  been  amended.) 
The  headnote  reads: 

"  Borders  of  the  right  of  limitation  of  building  freedom  by  police  ordi- 
nances;  especially  the  provision  for  single  districts  limiting  them  to  country 
house  development." 

The  ordinance  contained  provisions  limiting  building  in  certain 
districts  to  three-tenths  of  the  lot  and  two  stories.  The  owner  of 
a  lot  asked  for  a  permit  to  build  more  intensely  and  was  refused. 
The  matter  was  taken  to  the  highest  court,  having  jurisdiction  in 
these  Prussian  matters,  the  "  Obervenvaltungsgericht." 

The  decision  begins  by  citing  the  prior  decision  (just  cited)  sus- 
taining the  power  of  the  building  police  to  pass  zoning  regulations 
with  regard  to  factories  which  are  noisy,  emit  smells,  smoke,  etc. 
The  court  then  goes  on  to  say  that  zoning  is  a  proper  method  of 

30  Allgemeines  Landrecht,  sec.  10,  II,  17: 

"  The  taking  of  necessary  measures  for  the  preservation  of  the  public 
peace,  safety  and  order,  and  the  guarding  of  the  public  or  members  of  it 
from  threatened  danger,  is  the  duty  of  the  police." 

Gcsetz  iiber  die  Polizei-Verwaltung  (Law  with  regard  to  Police  Adminis- 
tration), of  March  11,  1850,  section  6: 

"Among  matters  of  local  police  regulation  are: 

"  a.  Protection  of  persons  and  property. 

"  b.  Order,  safety  and  ease  of  communication  on  public  streets,  ways  and 
squares,  bridges,  banks  and  waters.    .    .  . 
"  f.  Care  for  life  and  health. 

"  p.  Protection  against  fire  danger  by  building  operations.    .    .  . 
"1.  Anything  else  that  in  the  especial  interest  of  the  local  communities, 
or  things  belonging  to  them,  ought  to  be  regulated  by  the  police." 


GERMAN  ZONE  BUILDING  REGULATIONS 


III 


passing  building  regulations ;  that  this  implies  that  they  shall  vary 
in  severity ;  that,  as  a  part  of  a  general  scheme,  this  portion  of  the 
ordinance  was  a  proper  exercise  of  the  power  of  the  building  police. 
Other  zoning  ordinances,  among  them  Frankfort-on-the-Main,  with 
its  residence,  factory,  and  mixed  sections,  were  mentioned  with 
approval. 

The  owner  contended  that  the  ordinance  was  not  a  proper  police 
regulation,  but  class  legislation,  passed,  not  from  considerations  of 
health,  but  to  create  a  wealthy  colony.  The  court  held  that  the 
ordinance  might  well  be  in  the  interest  of  health  and  safety,  and 
that  its  necessity  and  fitness  to  accomplish  such  results  were  not 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court. 

The  same  court  (volume  37,  page  401,  No.  67)  decided,  in  1900, 
another  point  of  interest  to  us. 

The  ordinances  for  Hessen-Nassau  forbade,  in  a  given  section, 
the  erection  of  anything  but  "  country  dwelling  houses."  An  owner 
in  this  district  was  therefore  refused  a  permit  to  erect  a  storehouse. 
The  court  held  that  the  refusal  was  unauthorized.  The  building 
police  may  forbid  any  building  for  an  industry  likely  to  cause 
smell,  smoke,  noise,  etc.,  on  sanitary  grounds;  they  may,  perhaps, 
forbid  "  gross  disfigurement  "  of  the  street ;  but  there  was  no  proof 
that  the  building  was  objectionable  on  either  of  these  grounds.31 

To  the  same  effect  is  a  decision  by  the  same  court  (volume  57, 
page  461,  No.  104),  in  1910,  with  relation  to  a  similar  ordinance 
of  Frankfort-on-Oder.  The  court  held  that  such  an  ordinance  was 
not  a  provision  to  promote  the  public  health,  as  it  was  not  shown 
that  a  storeroom  or  carpenter  shop  there  would  produce  smell  or 
sufficient  noise  to  affect  health  or  comfort. 

It  is  a  matter  of  surprise  to  many  of  us  how  similar  the  ques- 
tions arising  under  these  building  ordinances  are  to  questions  in 
our  courts,  and  to  what  a  degree  the  German  courts  consider  these 
questions  and  decide  them  on  the  same  grounds  that  we  do. 

4.  Licenses 

Exemptions  from  building  ordinances  are  universally  provided 
for.  Generally,  certain  classes  of  cases  are  specified  in  which  the 
local  building  police  may  grant  them ;  and  certain  further  classes,  in 
which  the  higher  state  authorities  only  may  issue  them.  Sometimes 
the  state  authorities  are  allowed  to  grant  exceptions  to  all  the  pro- 
visions of  the  ordinance.  In  cases  where  they  are  granted  by  the 
local  building  police  there  is  always  an  appeal  to  the  state  authori- 
ties, with  further  appeals  ultimately,  as  a  general  thing,  to  the  king, 
duke  or  other  ruler,  or  his  minister.  Where  the  city  does  not  con- 
trol the  building  police,  it  often  may  appeal.  Often  abutters  and 
all  others  affected  may  also  be  heard. 

n  Under  Prussian  Landrecht  (State  Law),  I,  8,  sees.  66,  71.  The  present 
statute  gives  the  police  more  power  in  this  direction.  (See  p.  99). 


112  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

There  is  a  tendency  to  formulate  and  lay  down  rules  for  these 
exceptions.  For  instance,  if  a  monumental  private  dwelling  is  al- 
lowed to  exceed  the  height  limit,  it  is  not  allowed  to  go  beyond  the 
regular  number  of  stories ;  the  extra  height  shall  not  be  an  increase 
of  rentable  space.  If  a  store  is  allowed  to  cover  more  of  the  ground 
floor  than  the  ordinance  provides,  it  is  on  condition  that  the  total 
cubage  on  the  lot  shall  not  be  increased,  but  that  the  cubage  above 
the  given  floor  shall  be  by  that  much  lessened.  If  a  charitable  cor- 
poration is  allowed  to  construct  small  dwellings  in  the  roof  story, 
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  zone  in  which  its  building  is  sit- 
uated, it  must  leave  a  given  extra  space  (fixed  by  contract  with  the 
building  police)  for  front  garden,  court  or  children's  playground. 

5.    Land  Values,  and  Administration 

If  we  should  take  the  opinion  of  the  Germans  themselves  as  to 
land  prices  and  rents  as  affected  by  land  prices,  we  should  indeed 
pity  them.  The  Social  Museum  in  Frankfort  has  just  won  distinc- 
tion by  issuing  a  pamphlet  on  "  The  Need  of  Small  Dwellings  in 
Frankfort."  The  cause  of  this  shortage  and  high  rents  was,  it  was 
claimed,  the  high  price  of  land,  partly  due  to  the  restrictions  upon 
it.  Just  prior  to  1910,  building  there  had  almost  stopped.  The 
inner  zone,  where  the  restrictions  were  less,  was  practically  full, 
and  no  one  would  build  in  the  outer  zone,  where  the  limitations  on 
height  and  amount  of  lot  that  could  be  covered  with  buildings  were 
greater,  and  where,  therefore,  it  took  more  land  for  a  house  of  the 
same  size  not  so  high  and  therefore  with  less  rentable  space. 

On  the  demand  of  philanthropists,  land  owners,  business  men 
and  builders,  in  which  the  Social  Museum  joined,  these  restrictions 
were  lessened  in  1910,  so  that,  at  current  prices  for  land  in  the  outer 
zone,  a  building  high  and  large  enough  to  be  profitable  might  be 
built.  Very  few  have  been  erected ;  the  financial  situation  is  bad  in 
Germany  as  elsewhere. 

Frankfort  is  cited  as  a  case  where  regulation  did  not  keep  prices 
down.  There  were,  however,  other  causes  given  for  the  higher 
land  prices.  Dr.  Adickes,  as  mayor  of  Frankfort,  it  is  said,  built 
too  wide  streets,  for  which  the  abutters  had  to  pay,  and  bought 
land  for  the  city  too  extensively,  thus  lessening  the  supply."  The 
city  owns  a  third  of  all  the  possible  building  land  within  its  limits, 
and  a  few  large  institutions  and  wealthy  private  persons  hold  an- 
other third.  It  is  also  said  that  he  paid  too  high  prices  for  the  land 
he  bought  for  the  city,  thus,  in  a  third  way,  increasing  land  values. 
Adickes  is  ill  and  out  of  office.  The  new  administration  stands  for 
economy ;  the  splendid  results  he  obtained  remain.   To  us  the  modi- 

"The  Prussian  "City  Planning  Law"  (see  p.  108)  does,  it  is  true,  limit 
the  amount  of  street  the  abutter  is  obliged  to  pay  for  to  26  meters  (about 
85  feet),  13  to  the  abutter  on  each  side;  but  under  the  Lex  Adickes,  by  which 
a  redivisioh  of  land  can  be  compelled,  he  must  pay  more;  and  often,  also, 
the  city  refuses  to  lay  out  the  street  at  all  unless  he,  with  the  abutter  on  the 
other  side,  pays  for  it  all.  however  wide. 


GERMAN  ZONE  BUILDING  REGULATIONS  113 

fications  of  1910  would  hardly  seem  a  basis  for  quite  so  much  dis- 
cussion. Even  now,  in  this  outer  zone,  houses  cannot  be  built  quite 
so  high  as  the  street  is  wide;  and  half  the  lot  must  be  left  free  of 
buildings.  There  were,  however,  certain  restrictions  upon  the 
building  of  tenements,  intended  to  encourage  single  houses,  that 
were  practically  repealed.  In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to 
note  that  in  1910  the  Imperial  Government,  in  its  exhaustive  study 
of  the  building  regulations  (Beitrage  zur  Arbeiterstatistik  No.  11, 
Wohnungsfiirsorge),  a  portion  of  which  is  translated  herein,  pages 
115  to  119,  refers  to  the  question  of  the  effect  of  these  regulations 
upon  prices  of  land  and  rents  as  unsettled. 

Another  cause  given  for  high  land  values  is  the  prohibition  of 
so-called  "  wild  building."  In  Germany  streets  are  laid  out  only  in 
continuation  of  the  solidly  built  existing  city,  and  only  when  the 
street  is  at  once  needed  for  building  purposes.  This  is  especially 
true  of  most  of  Prussia,  but  exists  to  a  considerable  extent  in  all 
Germany  and  in  Austria.  The  purpose  of  this  system  is  to  pre- 
vent undue  cost  of  construction,  repairs  and  police.  The  result,  it  is 
claimed,  is  to  reduce  the  supply  of  "  building  ripe  "  land  to  a  mere 
fraction  of  the  potential  supply,  and  thus,  it  is  claimed,  to  raise 
prices.  The  cause  of  higher  prices  oftenest  given,  and  most  strongly 
denounced,  is  speculation.  Any  discussion  of  this  subject  would, 
however,  lead  us  too  far  afield. 

6.    Changes  in  Ordinances 

The  most  extreme  case  of  a  change  of  ordinance,  I  am  informed, 
is  the  amendment  of  September  6,  1912,  to  the  regulation  of  March 
15,  1910,  with  regard  to  a  part  of  Charlottenburg  ("  Westend,"  so- 
called),  changing  the  regulations  from  those  applying  to  Berlin 
proper  to,  in  small  part,  those  of  Class  A,  and  in  great  part,  Classes 
C  and  D  of  the  suburbs.  In  Berlin  proper  five  stories  and  the  use 
of  perhaps  75  per  cent  of  the  lot  is  allowed.  In  Class  A,  four 
stories  and  half  the  lot  ;  in  Class  C,  three  stories  and  three-tenths 
of  the  lot;  in  Class  D,  two  stories  and  three-tenths  of  the  lot  are 
the  limits.  The  result  was  to  destroy  about  three-quarters  of  the 
market  value  of  this  land. 

The  tract  was  undeveloped.  There  were  streets  all  around  it, 
but  none  within  its  borders.    There  was  only  an  old  castle  in  it. 

The  justification  of  the  change  given  by  the  officials  is  that  the 
land  was  not  on  any  street ;  and,  not  being  "  building  ripe,"  the 
prices  that  had  developed  were  purely  speculative.  A  state  official 
concerned  in  a  similar  change  in  the  ordinance  relating  to  another 
suburb  of  Berlin  said  to  me  in  relation  to  it :  "  It  was  raw  land. 
There  was  not  a  single  street  on  the  whole  tract.  All  the  sales 
were  pure  speculation.  They  must  take  their  chances  as  to  the 
ordinances  they  will  get,  and  they  knew  it  when  they  bought.  We 
can't  make  our  rules  to  fit  their  prices ;  let  them  fit  their  prices  to 
our  rules." 


"4 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


No  doubt  the  official  responsible  for  the  change  in  the  ordi- 
nance of  Charlottenburg  (Westend)  would  say  much  the  same 
thing. 

However,  to  avoid  complications  like  these,  the  latest  practice 
is  to  pass  as  early  as  possible  some  severe  regulation  allowing, 
perhaps,  two  stories,  and  two  or  three  tenths  of  the  lot  to  be  cov- 
ered, with  regard  to  all  outlying  land  about  which  there  is  any  un- 
certainty; with  the  idea  that  in  places,  perhaps,  a  more  intensive 
use  may  later  be  allowed.  This  is  called  keeping  the  land  "  in 
hand." 

In  Germany  under  the  zone  system,  as  everywhere,  location 
is  the  chief  factor  in  fixing  land  prices.  There  are  great  varia- 
tions in  value  in  the  same  zone.  In  Frankfort,  a  city  in  1910  of 
414,406  inhabitants,  the  highest  price  ever  given  for  land  was  3000 
marks  a  square  meter  (about  $66.33  a  square  foot).  This  was 
considered  exceptional ;  a  normal  value  for  the  best  business  loca- 
tion in  the  inner  city  is  perhaps  2000  to  2500  marks  ($44.22  to 
$55.27)  a  square  foot.  Business  locations  may  be  obtained  in 
this  zone  for  as  little  as  350  marks  ($7.74)  a  square  foot,  and  land 
may  be  had  for  150  marks  ($3.32)  a  square  foot. 

The  best  residence  property  in  the  inner  residence  zone  is  worth 
about  120  marks  a  square  meter  ($2.65  a  square  foot). 

In  Berlin,  the  only  German  city  that  can  be  compared  with 
New  York,  there  is  the  same  variation.  Greater  Berlin  has  about 
3,260,000  inhabitants.  As  much  as  7000  marks  a  square  meter 
($154.77  a  square  foot)  has  been  given  for  land  in  the  best  busi- 
ness location  in  the  inner  city.  A  normal  price  is  3000  marks 
($66.33)  a  square  foot.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  land  only 
two  houses  removed  from  Friedrichstrasse  and  Leipzigerstrasse  is 
worth  only  1000  marks  ($22.11)  a  square  foot  and  less. 

It  is  well  known  that  a  lot  in  New  York  City  25  feet  broad  by 
100  feet  deep,  at  the  corner  of  Wall  and  Broad  streets,  is  valued 
at  $1,250,000,  or  $500  a  square  foot.  There  is  no  such  valuation 
in  any  German  city. 

HOUSING  IN  GERMAN  CITIES" 
In  i9io  the  German  Imperial  Statistical  Office  issued,  in  its 
series  of  Workmen's  Statistics,  a  volume  of  Housing  in  German 
Cities.  It  contains  probably  the  only  collection  of  German  building 
laws,  orders  and  ordinances  in  existence.  The  collection  covers 
106  cities,  including  all  cities  and  city  states  (like  Bremen  and 
Hamburg)  that,  according  to  the  census  of  December  1,  1905,  had 
more  than  50,000  inhabitants ;  and  also  a  number  of  cities  that,  in 
relation  to  housing,  were  of  special  interest. 

In  the  preface  (page  v)  the  following  passage  indicates  the 

■  Bcitrage  zur  Arbeiterstatistik,  No.  11;  Wohnungsfiirsorge  in  deutschen 
Staetten.  Kaiserliches  Statistisches  Amt ;  Abteilung  fur  Arbeiterstatistik; 
Berlin,  Carl  Hermann'*  YeHag.  1910, 


GERMAN  ZONE  BUILDING  REGULATIONS 


basis  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  imperial  government,  underlies 
the  main  provisions  of  the  German  building  ordinances  (the  italics 
are  mine)  : 

"  From  the  building  police  regulations  substantially  the  following  provi- 
sions were  chosen:  Height  of  buildings  (front  and  rear  buildings),  number 
of  stories,  permissible  area  to  be  built  over  and  size  of  court,  space  between 
buildings  of  adjoining  proprietors,  dwelling  rooms  in  general,  roof  and  cellar 
rooms,  water-closets,  also  such  provisions  as  contain  modifications  lessening 
the  requirements  with  regard  to  the  construction  of  small  houses,  one- 
family  houses,  etc.    These  are  essentially  health  measures." 

A  translation  of  a  portion  of  the  introduction  (pp.  1-9)  follows : 

"A  number  of  German  states  (Bavaria,  Wurttemberg,  Baden,  Hessen. 
Brunswick,  Anhalt)  have  issued  general  building  regulations  for  their  entire 
territorial  limits.  In  these  states  the  provisions  of  the  separate  states,  con- 
tained in  the  state  building  regulations,  may  be  enlarged  or  in  certain  points 
changed  as  local  conditions  may  require.  ...  In  Prussia  there  is  no 
state  building  ordinance.  ...  At  present,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
general  principles  of  the  Allgemeine  Landrecht  (General  State  Law),  I,  8, 
sees.  33  et  seq.,  building  police  law  will  be  found  in  the  building  police  ordi- 
nances of  the  cities  that,  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  March  II,  1850,  sec.  6, 
and  the  Allgemeine  Landesverwaltung  (law  with  regard  to  general  state 
administration)  of  July  30,  1883,  sees.  137  et  seq.,  are  passed  generally  by 
the  local  police,  with  the  consent  of  the  Magistral,  Biirgomeister,  etc    .    .  . 

"A  majority  of  the  cities  have  passed  so-called  zone  building  ordinances. 
The  principle  of  the  zone  building  ordinance  is  that  for  particular,  especially 
outlying,  districts  of  the  city,  graduated,  materially  severer  provisions  exist 
than  for  the  city  center.  The  graduations  are  principally  in  the  provisions 
with  regard  to  the  amount  of  the  lot  that  may  be  covered  with  buildings, 
their  height  and  number  of  stories.   .   .  . 

"  Other  cities  have  not.  indeed,  passed  a  zone  building  ordinance — 1.  e., 
did  not.  on  passage  of  the  building  ordinance,  divide  in  a  systematic  manner 
the  entire  territory  of  the  city  into  zones — but.  nevertheless,  by  the  passage  of 
amendments  for  given  districts,  have  provided  a  less  intensive  use  of  the 
land  for  building  purposes.  The  introduction  of  such  restrictions  on  building 
for  separate  parts  of  the  city,  through  a  zone  building  ordinance  or  through 
amendments,  may  have  as  its  object  to  secure  to  them  a  villa  or  country 
character,  or  it  may  have  come  from  the  intention  to  force  back  the  large 
tenement  house,  and.  through  introduction  of  low  building,  to  provide 
healthier  and  cheaper  dwellings.  Which  of  these  motives  was  determining 
in  any  case  in  the  passage  of  building  ordinances,  and  how  these  intentions 
have  resulted  in  fact,  could  not  here  be  shown. 

14  Here  reference  is  also  made  to  the  graduated  building  provisions  which 
contain  less  severe  requirements  for  1  small  buildings/  '  small  dwelling 
houses,'  1  one  and  two  family  houses.'  The  less  exacting  provisions  are  prin- 
cipally with  relation  to  the  use  of  building  materials,  the  amount  of  the  lot 
that  may  be  covered,  the  clear  height  of  dwelling  rooms,  etc.  Such  gradua- 
tions and  milder  provisions  have  chiefly  been  adopted  by  the  following  cities  : 
Konigsberg,  Posen.  Bromberg.  Breslau.  Magdeburg.  Halle.  Altona,  Dortmund, 
Frankfort-on-the-Main,  Diisseldorf,  Elberfeld,  Oberhausen,  Rheydt,  Neuss, 
Coblence. 

"  Of  the  health  provisions  of  the  building  ordinances  with  relation  to  the 
building  itself,  those  with  relation  to  the  height  of  buildings,  the  number  of 
stories,  the  amount  of  lot  that  may  be  covered,  or  size  of  court,  the  space 
between  neighboring  buildings  or  open  or  partly  open  building,  have  been 
chosen  for  detailed  presentation. 

"  Next  come  the  provisions  with  relation  to  height  of  buildings,  since,  in 
connection  with  the  provisions  with  regard  to  the  distance  of  the  building 
from  buildings  opposite,  they  determine  the  share  of  light  and  air  for  the 


Il6  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

inhabitants  of  the  building  in  question.  With  regard  to  the  relation  of  the 
height  of  buildings  on  the  street  to  their  distance  from  opposite  buildings, 
the  usual  provision  is  that  the  height  of  the  building  shall  not  exceed  the 
breadth  of  the  street.  This  provision,  for  instance,  is  also  that  of  the  state 
law  for  the  cities  here  considered.  So,  according  to  the  Bavarian  Building 
Ordinance  (Royal  Ordinance  with  relation  to  building  of  February  17,  1901), 
'  the  height  of  private  buildings,  whether  newly  erected  or  raised  by  addition 
of  stories,  may  not  exceed  the  breadth  of  the  street,  including  the  sidewalk 
and  any  front  garden'  (set-back)."  According  to  the  General  Building  Law 
for  the  Kingdom  of  Saxony  of  July  1,  1900,  'the  height  of  buildings  shall 
not,  as  a  general  rule,  exceed  the  breadth  of  the  street,  including  any  front 
garden.'  The  same  provision  is  found  in  the  state  building  ordinance  of 
Baden  and  in  a  building  ordinance  for  the  duchy  of  Anhalt.  In  accordance 
with  the  state  building  ordinance  for  Hessen  (Gesetz,  betreffend  die  all- 
gemeine  Bauordnung,  vom  27  Mai,  1881),  however,  'the  greatest  permitted 
height  of  private  dwellings  shall  not,  as  a  rule,  exceed  the  width  of  the 
street,  including  the  sidewalk  and  the  front  garden,  by  more  than  2  meters.' 
In  accordance  with  the  state  building  ordinance  for  the  duchy  of  Brunswick 
(Gesetz,  betreffend  Bauordnung  fur  das  Herzogtum  Braunschweig,  vom  13 
Marz,  1899),  'the  height  of  buildings  to  be  erected  on  the  street  shall  not 
exceed  the  width  of  the  street  by  more  than  4.5  meters.' 

"  The  provision  that  the  height  of  buildings  shall  not  exceed  the  street 
width  is  found  as  the  fundamental  provision  in  the  majority  of  the  building 
ordinances  of  the  cities  here  considered.  In  addition,  there  is  usually  given 
a  fixed  measure  as  the  greatest  measure  of  the  height  of  buildings,  for  which 
regularly  the  height  of  the  building  is  reckoned  from  the  ground  to  the 
upper  edge  of  the  roof  cornice.  There  will  be  found  also  in  the  cities  with 
zone  building  ordinances  sharper  provisions  for  the  outlying  zones.  So  in 
Posen  the  height  of  buildings  in  general  must  not  be  greater  than  the  estab- 
lished street  breadth;  but,  nevertheless,  in  the  first  building  class,  at  most 
20  meters;  in  the  second,  17.50  meters;  and  in  the  third,  15  meters.  Similar 
graded  provisions  with  the  fundamental  provision  that  the  building  height 
shall  not  exceed  the  street  breadth  are  in  force,  among  others,  for  Konigs- 
berg  (for  streets  less  than  7  meters  in  breadth,  always  7  meters  high), 
Breslau  (Zones  II,  III  and  IV),  Kiel,  Flensburg,  Hagen,  Frankfort-on-the- 
Main  (outer  city,  with  a  street  breadth  up  to  9  meters,  always  9  meters), 
Cassel,  Diisseldorf,  Essen,  Cologne  (Zones  II,  III  and  IV),  Mannheim. 
Freiburg.  The  fundamental  principle  that  the  height  of  buildings  shall  not 
exceed  the  street  breadth  is  in  force  also  in  Berlin,  and  its  suburbs.  Gorlitz, 
Konigshiitte,  Gleiwitz  and  Beuthen,  Luneburg,  Pforzheim,  and  the  Bavarian 
and  Saxon  cities. 

"  In  a  number  of  cities  on  streets  of  a  given  breadth  or  less  the  height 
of  buildings  may  exceed  that  width;  but  on  streets  of  more  than  that  width 
the  height  may  not  exceed  it.    This  width  is : 


City  Meters 

Spandau    10 

Potsdam   10 

Brandenburg    10 

Frankfort-on-Oder    10 

Stettin   15 

Bromberg    11 

Magdeburg    11.50 

Altona    11 

Hanover    10 

Dortmund    15 

Bochum    13 .50 


City  Meters 

Minister    15 

Bielefeld  (outside  the  walls) . .  10 

Wiesbaden    11 

Duisburg    15 

Barmen  (2d  zone)   14 

Saarbriicken    12 

Grand  duchy  Saxony   11 

Brunswick  (outer  city)   9 

Bremen    11 

Metz    15 


"Since  materially  amended.  See  p.  106.  This  provision,  however,  has 
not  been  changed. 


GERMAN  ZONE  BUILDING  REGULATIONS 


117 


"  In  a  number  of  cities  the  breadth  of  the  street  may  be  exceeded  by  a 
given  measure.  This  is  true  principally  of  the  cities  in  Wiirttemberg,  where 
the  street  width  generally  may  be  exceeded  up  to  4.5  meters ;  also  of  the 
cities  in  Hessen,  where  it  may  as  a  rule,  or  from  a  given  breadth  on,  be 
exceeded  up  to  2  meters. 

"  In  a  still  further  number  of  cities,  in  so  far  as  the  street  breadth  reaches 
a  fixed  minimum,  the  height  of  buildings  may  exceed  the  street  breadth  by 
a  rixed  measure  in  addition  to  that  excess.  Thus  the  height  of  buildings  in 
Cologne  (first  zone),  with  a  street  breadth  of  more  than  8  meters,  may 
exceed  11.50  by  as  much  as  the  street  width  exceeds  8  meters.  Bonn,  Miil- 
heim-on-the-Khine,  Coblence  and  Colmar  have  somewhat  similar  rules. 

"  Further,  in  a  number  of  cities,  the  building  height  may  exceed  the  street 
width  as  a  rule,  or  from  a  given  street  width  on.  So  in  Danzig,  with  a  street 
width  of  over  12  meters,  the  height  of  the  buildings  may  be  1%  the  street 
breadth.  In  Hanover,  with  a  street  width  up  to  10  meters,  the  building 
height  may  also  equal  1*4  the  street  breadth.  In  Osnabrook,  with  a  street 
width  up  to  8  meters,  a  building  height  il/2  times  the  street  width  is  allowed. 
In  Liibeck,  up  to  a  depth  of  20  meters  behind  the  building  line,  a  building 
height  of  il/>  times  the  street  breadth  is  allowed.  In  Barmen,  in  the  first 
zone,  with  a  street  width  over  10  meters,  a  height  of  building  of  half  the 
street  width  plus  9  meters  is  allowed ;  in  the  second  zone,  with  a  street  breadth 
of  from  10  to  14  meters,  a  height  of  half  the  street  breadth  plus  7  meters 
is  allowed. 

"As  above  stated,  a  majority  of  cities  have  established  a  maximum  for 
height  of  buildings  beyond  which  nothing  may  be  built.35  In  the  cities  with 
zone  building  ordinances  this  height  grows  less  in  the  outer  districts.  So 
far  as  relates  solely  to  the  respective  first  zones,  it  appears  that  a  maximum 
height  of  22  meters  (a  greater  measure  does  not  occur  in  the  cities  here  con- 
sidered) is  allowed  in  the  following  cities:  Berlin,  Charlottenburg,  Schone- 
berg,  Rixdorf,  Deutsch-Wilmersdorf,  Lichtenberg  (the  five  last-named  places 
in  so  far  as  their  territory  lies  within  the  ring  railroad),  Breslau,  Altona, 
Kiel  and  Cassel ;  the  Bavarian  cities  :  the  Saxon  cities — except  Dresden,  Zittau 
and  Grimmitschau — Mayence  and  Rostock.30  Konigsberg  has  a  maximum 
height  of  21  meters. 

"  A  maximum  height  of  20  meters  exists  in  Danzig,  Stettin,  Posen,  Konigs- 
hutte,  Gleiwitz,  Reuthen,  Magdeburg,  Erfurt,  Flensburg,  Hanover,  Harburg, 
Dortmund,  Gelsenkirchen,  Frankfort-on-the-Main  (inner  city),  Diisseldorf, 
Duisburg.  Elberfeld,  Miinchen-Gladbach,  Cologne,  Bonn,  Alulheim-on-the- 
Rhine,  Aachen,  Stuttgart,  Ulm,  Heilbronn,  Karlsruhe,  Mannheim,  Brunswick, 

"  The  maximum  height  of  19  meters  is  fixed  for  Wiesbaden,  Freiburg, 
Bremen ;  of  18.50  meters  for  Miihlhausen-in-Alsace ;  t8  meters  for  Charlot- 
tenburg, Schoneberg,  Rixdorf,  Deutsch-"\Yilmersdorf,  Lichtenberg  (so  far 
as  this  city  lies  outside  the  ring  railroad),  Brandenburg,  Frankfort-on-Oder, 
Gorlitz,  Liegnitz,  Halle,  Osnabrook,  Miinster,  Bielefeld,  Essen,  Barmen,  Cre- 
feld,  Coblence,  Saarbriicken.  Zittau,  Crimmitschau,  Liibeck. 

"A  maximum  of  under  18  meters  exists  in  Hagen,  Solingen,  Rheydt.   .   .  . 

"  The  number  of  stories  allowed  in  cities  with  zone  building  ordinances 
grows  less  from  the  interior  to  the  outskirts.  A  few  cities  make  the  number 
of  the  stories  dependent  upon  the  street  width.  This  is  true  of  Harburg, 
Bochum,  Miinster,  Barmen,  Pforzheim.    .    .  . 

"  In  many  cities  both  the  amount  of  the  lot  that  may  be  covered  and  the 
minimum  size  of  courts  is  fixed  .  .  .  For  corner  lots  .  .  .  there  are 
provisions  that  allow  an  intenser  use.  In  the  building  ordinances  that  pro- 
vide for  a  division  by  zones  the  provisions  with  regard  to  the  amount  of  the 


3j  Except,  generally,  public  buildings,  monumental  buildings,  etc. ;  and 
turrets  and  other  ornamentation  to  a  limited  height  and  amount. 

36  On  page  420  of  this  work,  however,  it  appears  that  in  Hamburg  the 
maximum  is  24  meters ;  and  so  it  apears  from  the  building  ordinances,  edition 
of  1909. 


n8 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


lot  that  may  be  covered  are  throughout  so  graded  that  in  the  outer  districts 
only  a  small  part  of  the  surface  may  be  used  for  buildings.  In  the  following 
summary  only  the  first,  or,  inner,  zone  will  be  considered: 

"As  the  proportion  of  the  lot  that  may  be  built  over  in  a  majority  of 
cities,  three-quarters  of  the  entire  lot  is  hxed.  In  this  class  belong  Konigs- 
berg,  Danzig,  Spandau.  Potsdam,  Brandenburg,  Frankfort-on-Oder,  Breslau, 
Gorlitz,  Liegnitz.  Halle,  Altona,  Kiel,  Flensburg,  Dortmund,  Gelsenkirchen, 
Bochum,  Frankfort-on-the-Main  (inner  city),  Duisburg,  Elberfeld,  Barmen, 
Remscheid,  Miinchen-Gladbach,  Solingen,  Rheydt,  Neuss,  Cologne,  Bonn. 
Mulheim-on-the-Rhine,  Aachen,  Coblence.  Saarbnicken,  Karlsruhe,  Con- 
stance, Darmstadt,  Offenbach,  Worms  and  Brunswick,  as  well  as,  generally, 
the  Bavarian  cities.87 

"A  still  greater  use  of  the  lot  for  building  (and  indeed  to  four-fifths)  is 
allowed  by  Giessen,  Liibeck.  Miihlhausen-in-Alsace  and  Metz. 

"A  lesser  use  of  the  lot  than  in  the  foregoing  cities  (and  indeed  up  to 
seven-tenths)  is  provided  in  Stettin.  Posen.  Bielefeld  (in  the  case  of  lots 
inside  the  old  walls),  Bautzen.  Up  to  two-thirds  may  be  covered  in  Brom- 
berg,  Konigshutte,  Gleiwitz.  Beuthen,  Magdeburg.  Erfurt.  Hanover,  Harburg. 
Luneberg,  Miinster.  Hagen.  Oberhausen,  Munich.  Zittau,  Rostock,  and  in  the 
duchy  of  Anhalt.  Up  to  half  may  be  so  used  in  Charlottenburg.  Schoneberg, 
Rixdorf,  Lichtenberg  (in  so  far  as  these  five  cities  lie  outside  the  ring  rail- 
road and  so  far  as  building  Class  I  is  concerned). 

"  In  a  number  of  cities  the  amount  of  lot  that  may  be  covered  is  so  fixed 
that  the  lot  is  divided  into  strips.  This  is  true,  for  instance,  of  Berlin,  Char- 
lottenburg. Schoneberg,  Rixdorf.  Deutsch-Wilmersdorf.  Lichtenberg  (so  far 
these  cities  lie  within  the  ring  railroad).  The  first  strip  that,  measured  from 
the  building  line,  extends  to  the  depth  of  6  meters  may  be  fully  covered; 
the  second  strip,  that  extends  to  a  depth  of  32  meters,  may  be  built  over  in 
Berlin  to  the  extent  of  seven-tenths,  in  the  rest  of  the  above  named  cities, 
of  sixty-five  hundredths,  of  the  lot.  A  similar  division  into  strips,  although 
to  different  limits,  exists  in  Osnabrook.  Cassel.  Wiesbaden.  Dresden. 

"  In  Essen  the  amount  of  the  lot  that  may  be  covered  is  fixed  with  rela- 
tion to  the  number  of  stories.  Thus,  in  Zone  I,  with  two  and  three  story 
houses  75  per  cent  of  the  surface,  with  four-story  houses  70  per  cent,  may  be 
built  over.  In  a  few  other  cities  (Solingen,  Bonn,  Miilheim-on-the-Rhine) 
in  certain  zones  the  extent  of  surface  that  may  be  built  over  is  dependent 
upon  height. 

"  In  Stuttgart.  Ulm.  Heilbronn,  Freiburg,  Pforzheim.  Heidelberg  minimum 
requirements  exist  only  with  regard  to  the  height,  while  actual  provisions 
with  regard  to  the  amount  of  the  lot  that  may  be  covered  are  lacking.  There 
are  in  them  all  provisions  with  relation  to  the  distance  between  front  and 
rear  buildings ;  also  1  must  a  certain  amount  of  the  lot.  with  a  given  relation 
to  the  height  of  the  buildings,  remain  uncovered.'  .  .  .  Tn  Ulm,  1  in  Class  I 
of  the  new  building  lands,  a  court  must  be  left  behind  the  front  building 
equal  to  half  the  height  of  its  rear  side.'  .    .  . 

"  In  Freiburg  a  portion  of  the  lot,  undivided  and  in  one  piece,  of  at  least 
50  square  meters  must  be  left  free  of  buildings  when  there  are  buildings  of 
three  or  less  stories  upon  it.  and  for  every  additional  story  20  square  meters 
more  are  required.  Pforzheim  demands  a  court  of  30  square  meters,  by 
3.60  meters  least  breadth  ;  Heidelberg,  one  of  60  square  meters. 

"  In  the  cities  that,  in  addition  to  provisions  with  relation  to  the  propor- 
tion of  the  lot  that  may  be  covered,  have  at  the  same  time  rules  with  rela- 
tion to  the  size  of  the  court,  the  least  surface  that  is  demanded  is.  in  the 
majority  of  cases,  given;  sometimes  in  terms  of  minimum  square  surface, 
while  other  cities  simply  give  the  minimum  breadth  or  length  of  the  court. 
Tn  general,  a  court  of  about  40  square  meters  is  required  by  Danzig.  Stet- 
tin. Gorlitz.  Liegnitz.  Dortmund.  Aachen,  Coblence.  Bautzen;  30  to  36  square 

"  In  Gorlitz  and  Liegnitz  in  the  case  of  lots  whose  depths  from  the  neigh- 
boring border  docs  not  exceed  35  meters. 


GERMAN  ZONE  BUILDING  REGULATIONS  II9 

meters  are  required  by  Posen,  Cassel.  Harburg,  Bielefeld,  Oberhausen  (for 
lots  of  less  than  108  square  meters).  Rheydt,  Neuss ;  50  square  meters  are 
required  in  Spandau,  Potsdam,  Brandenburg,  Frankfort-on-Oder,  Halle,  Rem- 
scheidt  (for  lots  of  less  than  200  square  meters),  Dresden.  Berlin  demands 
a  minimum  court  of  80  meters  by  6  meters  least  dimension.  In  Magdeburg, 
in  the  old  city,  a  free  uncovered  court  of  10  by  10  meters  minimum  measure- 
ment must  be  left."  .    .  . 


APPENDIX  IV 


BUILDING  RESTRICTIONS  IN  VARIOUS  CITIES 

By  Herbert  S.  Swan 
LONDON  1 

Definition  of  height 2 

In  ascertaining  the  height  of  a  building  it  is  measured  from  the 
level  of  the  footway  immediately  in  front  of  its  center  to  the  top 
of  the  parapet.  The  top  of  the  external  wall  is  taken  if  there  is  no 
parapet,  except  in  the  case  of  the  gabled  buildings,  where  the  base 
of  the  gable  is  taken.  If  there  happens  to  be  no  footway,  then  the 
level  of  the  ground  before  excavation  is  taken  in  its  place. 

General  limit,  front  height 3 

Except  by  the  consent  of  the  council,  no  building  not  a  church 
or  chapel  may  be  erected  or  increased  to  a  greater  height  than  8o 
feet.  This  limitation,  however,  is  exclusive  of  two  stories  in  the 
roof  and  of  ornamental  towers,  turrets  or  other  architectural  fea- 
tures. 

Roofs  may  not  incline  from  the  external  or  party  walls  upward 
at  a  greater  angle  with  the  horizon  than  47  degrees  in  the  case  of 
buildings  of  the  warehouse  class  and  at  a  greater  angle  than  75 
degrees  in  the  case  of  other  buildings.  This  provision  does  not 
apply  to  towers,  turrets  or  spires. 

Where  any  existing  building  forming  part  of  a  continuous  block 
or  row  of  buildings  exceeded  this  height  January  1,  1895,  there  is 
nothing  to  prevent  any  other  building  in  the  same  block  or  row 
belonging  on  the  same  date  this  act  was  passed  to  the  same  owner 
from  being  carried  to  a  height  equal  to  but  not  exceeding  that  of 
the  existing  building. 

Buildings  over  80  feet  in  height  on  January  1,  1895,  may  be 
rccrected  to  their  height  on  that  date. 

As  regards  the  possibility  of  the  council  consenting  to  the  erec- 
tion of  a  building  having  a  height  greater  than  80  feet,  Mr.  Cubitt 
says,  page  93:  "  Possibly  if  the  excess  were  only  a  question  of  a 
few  feet  there  might  be  no  difficulty  in  obtaining  consent,  but  if  the 
increase  in  height  were  very  considerable  it  is  very  doubtful  whether 
the  application  would  be  granted.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the 
tendency  has  been  toward  a  reduction  in  the  height  of  London 
buildings.    At  the  time  of  the  passing  of  the  1894  act  a  height  of 

'References:    London  Building  Act,  1894,  57-58  Vict.  C.  CCXIII,  and 
Horace  Cubitt.  Building  in  London  (1911). 
3  London  Building  Act,  1894,  sec.  5,  div.  21. 
1  Ibid.,  sec.  47- 


RESTRICTIONS  IN  LONDON 


121 


90  feet  was  allowed  under  the  provisions  of  the  London  County 
Council  (General  Powers)  Act,  1890." 

Limit  on  certain  streets  4 

A  special  provision  is  made  for  buildings  on  streets  formed  or 
laid  out  after  August  7,  1862,  and  less  than  50  feet  in  width. 

In  the  case  of  such  streets  the  height,  unless  the  council  other- 
wise consents,  may  not  exceed  the  distance  of  the  front  or  nearest 
external  wall  of  the  building  from  the  opposite  side  of  the  street. 
The  only  exception  from  this  regulation  is  that  existing  churches 
and  chapels  may  be  raised  to  a  greater  height.  A  building  situated 
on  a  corner  plot  has  its  height  regulated  by  the  width  of  the  wider 
street  to  a  depth  of  40  feet  back  from  such  street. 

Special  limit  on  the  height  and  open  space  of  "  domestic " 
buildings  5 

The  act  divided  buildings  into  three  classes : 

1.  Domestic  buildings  (dwelling-houses  and  buildings  not  included  in  the 
other  two  classes).    Sec.  5(26). 

2.  Public  buildings  (churches,  chapels,  schools,  colleges,  hospitals,  work- 
houses,  public  theaters,  public  halls,  public  concert  rooms,  public  lecture 
rooms,  public  libraries,  hotels,  lodging-houses,  home  refuges  or  shelters,  etc., 
with  contents  exceeding  250,000  cubic  feet  or  sleeping  accommodations  for 
more  than  100  persons).     Sec.  5(27). 

3.  Warehouses  (warehouses,  manufactories,  breweries,  distilleries,  and 
any  other  building  with  contents  exceeding  150.000  cubic  feet  that  are  not 
included  in  either  of  the  two  preceding  classes).   Sec.  5(28). 

"  Domestic "  buildings  with  habitable  basement  erected  after 
January  1,  1895 6 

An  open  space  aggregating  not  less  than  100  square  feet,  and 
exclusively  belonging  thereto,  must  be  provided  in  the  rear  of  each 
"  domestic  "  building  having  a  habitable  basement  and  erected  after 
January  1,  1895.  The  space,  which  need  not  necessarily  adjoin  the 
rear  boundary  of  the  premises,  must  be  free  from  any  obstruction 
whatever. 

A  basement  is  a  story  having  its  floor  at  a  greater  distance  than 
4  feet  below  the  level  of  the  adjoining  pavement.  The  space,  how- 
ever, is  not  required  to  be  at  basement  but  at  pavement  level. 

"  Domestic  "  buildings  erected  on  streets  laid  out  after  January 
1,  1895  7 

Every  "  domestic  "  building  erected  after  January  1,  1895,  and 
abutting  upon  a  street  formed  or  laid  out  after  the  same  date  is 
subject  to  two  special  requirements  with  reference  to  open  space. 

*  London  Building  Act.  sec.  49. 
5  Ibid.,  sec.  5  (26,  27,  28). 
8  Ibid.,  sec.  40. 
T  Ibid.,  sec.  41. 


122 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION  • 


I.  The  fixed  minimum — An  open  space  in  the  rear  with  a  mini- 
mum width  of  10  feet  must  extend  throughout  the  entire  width  of 
the  building.  In  no  case  may  this  space  have  an  area  aggregating 
less  than  150  feet.  The  act  does  not  define  the  width  of  a  building 
when  its  front  and  rear  widths  differ. 

There  seems  to  be  some  question  whether  this  space  has  to  be 
continuous  in  its  extent.  Mr.  Cubitt,  for  instance,  is  of  the  opinion 
that  space  A  and  B  in  Diagram  XIII  would  satisfy  all  the  require- 
ments of  the  act. 

DIAGRAM  XIII 


The  space  may  be  provided  above  the  level  of  the  ceiling  of  the 
ground  story  or  at  a  level  of  16  feet  above  the  adjoining  pavement 
level  in  two  instances. 

a.  Where  there  is  a  basement  directly  and  sufficiently  lighted 
and  ventilated  by  the  open  space  irrespective  of  any  uses  to  which 
the  ground  story  is  appropriated ;  or 

b.  Where  there  is  no  basement  story  but  where  the  ground 
story  is  not  constructed  or  adapted  to  be  inhabited. 

When  the  space  is  provided  at  a  level  of  16  feet  above  the  ad- 
joining pavement,  it  may  be  used  for  lantern  lights.  When  it  is 
provided  at  pavement  level  a  water-closet,  earth-closet,  or  privy 
and  a  receptacle  for  ashes,  and  enclosing  walls  not  exceeding  9  feet 
in  height  may  be  erected. 

2.  The  variable  minimum,  tlie  diagonal  I'me,  rear  Jieight — The 
open  space  demanded  in  any  particular  case  depends  quite  as  much 
Upon  the  diagonal  line  as  upon  the  foregoing  requirements. 

The  diagonal  line  is  drawn  as  follows :  An  imaginary  hori- 
zontal line  drawn  at  right  angles  to  the  roadway  is  projected  through 
the  frontage  center  of  the  building  until  it  intersects  the  rear 
boundary  of  the  plot.  From  this  point  of  intersection  a  second 
imaginary  line  is  drawn  in  the  direction  of  the  building.  This  line 
is  a  diagonal  line  in  the  same  vertical  plane  as  the  first  and  inclined 
at  an  angle  of  63 J/2  degrees  to  it.  No  part  of  the  building  may 
extend  above  the  diagonal  line  except  chimneys,  dormers,  gables, 
turrets  or  other  architectural  ornaments  aggregating  in  all  not 
more  than  one-third  of  the  width  of  the  building. 


RESTRICTIONS  IN  LONDON 


123 


The  horizontal  line  is  drawn  at  the  level  of  the  pavement  unless 
the  site  inclines  toward  the  roadway.  In  that  case  it  is  drawn  at 
the  same  level  as  the  point  which  it  intersects  on  the  rear  boundary. 
When  the  pavement  in  front  of  the  building  is  not  all  on  one  level, 
the  mean  level  is  taken. 

Where  the  boundary  of  the  space  at  the  rear  of  the  building  is 
not  parallel  with  the  rear  wall  of  the  building,  then  the  horizontal 
line  is  to  be  drawn  to  a  point  situated  at  the  mean  distance  of  the 
boundary  from  the  rear  of  the  building,  whether  such  point  be 
beyond  the  boundary  line  or  not.  From  this  point  the  diagonal  line 
must  be  drawn. 

When  the  land  at  the  rear  of  a  building  and  exclusively  belong- 
ing thereto  abuts  immediately  upon  a  street,  a  diagonal  line  may 
be  drawn  upon  the  horizontal  line  at  the  center  of  the  roadway  of 
such  street  and  it  is  unnecessary  to  provide  any  open  space  at  the 
rear  of  the  building.  The  roadway  furnishes  the  level  at  which 
the  line  is  drawn. 

When  the  land  at  the  rear  of  a  building  and  exclusively  belong- 
ing thereto  abuts  immediately  upon  an  open  space  which  is  dedi- 
cated to  the  public  or  the  maintenance  of  which  as  an  open  space 
is  secured  permanently  or  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  council  by  cove- 
nant or  otherwise,  the  diagonal  line  may  be  drawn  from  the  hori- 
zontal line  at  the  farthest  boundary  of  the  open  space  and  it  is 
unnecessary  to  provide  any  open  space  at  the  rear  of  the  building. 
The  farthest  boundary  of  the  open  space  furnishes  the  level  at 
which  the  line  is  drawn. 

Buildings  on  corner  sites,  or  on  sites  abutting  on  a  street  and  an 
open  space  not  less  than  40  feet  wide,  the  permanent  maintenance 
of  which  is  secured,  are  allowed,  despite  the  ordinary  diagonal  line 
provisions  to  have  their  return  fronts  carried  up  the  full  height  of 
the  front  elevation  for  a  distance  of  40  feet,  or  for  such  less  dis- 
tance as  the  requirements  for  open  space  at  the  rear  may  demand. 

The  council,  moreover,  may  in  the  case  of  these  corner  build- 
ings, if  it  sees  fit,  permit  the  building  to  be  erected  on  part  or  all 
of  the  space  in  the  rear  to  a  height  not  exceeding  30  feet,  if  it  is 
satisfied  that  such  buildings  will  be  placed  so  as  not  to  interfere 
unduly  with  the  access  of  light  and  air  to  neighboring  buildings. 

In  exceptional  cases  where,  owing  to  the  irregular  shape  of  the 
land,  the  ordinary  provisions  of  the  law  relative  to  space  and 
diagonal  level  cannot  be  applied,  the  council  may  allow  such  modi- 
fications as  it  sees  fit,  provided  it  is  satisfied  that  these  modifications 
will  not  unduly  interfere  with  the  access  of  light  and  air. 

Notwithstanding  all  these  provisions  it  is  provided  that  any 
part  of  a  domestic  building  may  extend  above  the  diagonal  line 
provided  the  council  or  tribunal  of  appeal  shall  be  satisfied  that 
an  open  cubic  space  of  air  will  be  provided  -at  the  rear  of  such 
building  equivalent  to  the  open  cubic  space  which  would  have  been 
provided  at  the  rear  of  such  building  if  such  diagonal  line  had 


124 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


been  drawn  from  the  ground  level  in  the  manner  previously  pro- 
vided for,  and  if  no  part  of  the  building  had  extended  above  such 
diagonal  line  except  as  permitted  under  the  preceding  provisions 
of  the  section.  This  exception  presumably  refers  to  chimneys, 
dormers,  etc.,  not  exceeding  one-third  of  the  width  of  the  rear 
elevation. 

This  allows  the  upper  portion  of  a  building  to  project  consid- 
erably beyond  the  diagonal  line,  so  long  as  an  equivalent  cubic  air 
space  is  provided  by  setting  back  either  the  whole  or  some  portion 
of  the  building  to  a  greater  extent  than  the  ordinary  provisions 
of  the  act  require.    (See  Diagram  XIV.) 

Nothing  in  section  41  applies  to  houses  abutting  in  the  rear 
on  the  River  Thames  or  on  a  public  park  or  on  an  open  space  of 
not  less  than  80  feet  in  depth  which  is  dedicated  to  the  public  or 
the  maintenance  of  which  as  an  open  space  is  secured  permanently 
or  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  council  by  covenant  or  otherwise. 

In  the  case  of  a  shallow  lot,  the  diagonal  line  will  evidently  not 
only  limit  the  rear  but  also  the  front  height  of  a  building. 

"  Domestic  99  buildings  erected  on  streets  laid  out  before  January 
1,  1895  8 

The  requirements  with  reference  to  height  and  open  space  of 
domestic  buildings  erected  on  streets  laid  out  before  January  1, 
1895,  are  the  same  as  those  for  buildings  erected  on  streets  laid  out 
after  that  date  with  one  exception :  the  diagonal  line  is  drawn  at  a 
level  16  feet  above  the  level  of  the  adjoining  pavement. 

Limit  on  courts  within  a  building 9 

1.  Ventilation  of  courts  enclosed  on  every  side — In  the  case 
of  a  court  enclosed  on  every  side,  constructed'  for  admitting  light 
and  air  to  a  "  domestic  "  building  if  its  dimensions  are  such  that 
its  depth,  from  the  eaves  or  top  of  the  parapet  to  the  ceiling  of  the 
ground  story,  exceeds  the  length  or  breadth,  adequate  provisions 
for  the  ventilation  of  such  court  must  be  made  and  maintained  by 
the  owner  by  means  of  a  communication  between  the  lower  end  of 
the  court  and  the  outer  air. 

2.  Habitable  rooms  in  court  enclosed  on  every  side — The 
height  of  any  portion  of  a  building  opposite  to  a  portion  contain- 
ing habitable  rooms  lighted  solely  by  a  court  is  limited  by  this  sec- 
tion. No  habitable  rooms  may  be  constructed  if  lighted  only  from 
a  court  enclosed  on  every  side,  unless  the  width  of  the  court  is 
equal  to  half  the  height  of  the  wall  on  the  opposite  side  measured 
from  the  level  of  the  sill  of  the  window  which  lights  the  habitable 
rooms  to  the  eaves  or  top  of  the  parapet  of  the  wall. 

A  court,  however,  whose  greater  dimension  does  not  exceed 


*  London  Building  Act,  sec.  41. 
9  Ibid.,  sec.  45. 


DIAGRAM  XIV 


THE  CU8JC  AIR  SPACE 
SHOWN  IN  -SECTION  IKLM 
AND  IN  PLAN  AT  CD'EF 
MUST  AT  LET/AST  EQUAL 
THE  CUBIC  CONTENTS 
CF  THC  TWO  PORTIONS 
OF  THE  BUILDING 
SHOWN  IN  PLAN  AT 

ABCD  and  EFGH 

RESPECTIVELY*  ANO 
IN  SECTION  AT  UK 


pl  Ar\i 


126  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

twice  the  length  of  the  smaller  dimension  complies  with  this  pro- 
vision if  a  square  court  of  the  same  area  would  comply. 

Unless  the  court  is  exceptionally  narrow,  the  limit  permitted 
by  this  provision  will  result  in  a  greater  height.    Diagram  XV  taken 


DIAGRAM  XV 


from  Cubitt  illustrates  this.  Cubitt,  referring  to  this  diagram,  says 
(pages  91,  92)  : 

"  The  wall  hatched  in  black  lines  shows  the  maximum  height  to  which  it 
is  possible,  in  the  court  in  question  and  when  complying  with  the  original 
requirement,  to  carry  a  wall  opposite  to  windows  which  light  habitable  rooms. 
The  height  of  the  wall— that  is  to  say,  measured  from  the  dotted  line  at  the 
level  of  the  sill  of  the  window  on  the  ground  story  on  the  opposite  side  of 
the  court— may  not  exceed  the  width  of  the  court.  The  portion  of  the  wall 
indicated  in  dotted  lines  shows  the  increased  height  to  which  it  is  possible 
to  carry  the  wall  by  taking  advantage  of  the  proviso.    This  increased  height 


RESTRICTIONS  IN  PARIS 


127 


is  calculated  as  follows :  A  square  court  of  similar  area  to  the  existing  court 
is  described  as  shown  by  the  dotted  lines  on  the  plan.  A  dotted  vertical  line 
is  drawn  on  the  section  to  correspond  with  that  side  of  the  imaginary  square 
court  which  is  opposite  to  the  window  under  consideration.  Then  the  height 
of  the  wall,  measured  from  the  dotted  line  at  the  level  of  the  sill  of  the 
window  on  the  ground  story,  may  be  equal  to  twice  the  distance  from  the 
wall  in  which  the  windows  occur  to  the  dotted  line  in  the  section,  or,  in 
other  words,  equal  to  twice  the  width  of  the  imaginary  square  court." 

Habitable  rooms  in  court  open  on  one  side 

If  the  depth  of  a  court  exceeds  twice  its  width,  no  habitable 
rooms  above  the  ground  story  may  be  constructed,  if  lighted  only 
from  such  court,  unless  the  width  of  the  court  is  equal  to  half  the 
height  of  the  wall  on  the  opposite  side  measured  from  the  level  of 
the  sill  of  the  window  which  lights  the  habitable  room. 

Procedure  and  right  of  appeal 10 

This  section  provides  for  the  service  of  notices  in  connection 
with  an  application  for  a  greater  height  than  that  prescribed  by  the 
act,  and  an  appeal  from  the  council's  decision  in  such  a  case,  and  the 
consents  granted  by  the  council. 

The  right  of  appeal  can  be  exercised  by  all  parties  interested, 
both  in  the  case  of  consent  or  in  the  case  of  refusal.  The  owner 
or  lessee  of  any  building  or  land  within  100  yards  of  the  intended 
building  who  may  deem  himself  aggrieved  by  the  grant  of  any 
consent,  and  also  any  applicant  for  consent  which  has  been  refused, 
may,  respectively,  within  21  days  after  the  publication  of  the  con- 
sent or  of  the  refusal  appeal  to  the  Tribunal  of  Appeal. 

PARIS 11 

The  basic  limitation  on  the  height  of  buildings  in  Paris  is  the 
street  width  increased  by  an  arbitrary  unit  of  additional  height.  This 
arbitrary  unit  of  additional  height  and  the  street  width  stand  in 
inverse  proportion :  in  the  case  of  footpaths  and  very  narrow 
streets,  the  arbitrary  unit  of  additional  height  may  even  exceed 
the  width  of  the  street,  but  it  diminishes  gradually  with  each  in- 
crement in  the  street  width  until  in  the  case  of  very  wide  streets 
it  disappears  altogether. 

Height  below  the  cornice  line 

On  streets  39.36  feet  and  less  in  width  the  maximum  height  be- 
low the  cornice  line  may  not  exceed  the  width  of  the  street  plus 
19.68  feet. 

10  London  Building  Act,  sec.  48. 

"References:  Louis  Bonnier,  Les  Reglements  de  Voirie;  William  Atkin- 
son, The  Orientation  of  Buildings,  translation  of  the  decree  regulating  the 
height  of  buildings  in  Paris,  128-136. 


128 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


The  following  table  shows  the  maximum  height  below  the  cornice 
line  on  streets  less  than  39.36  feet  wide.  Formula  to  ascertain  maxi- 
mum height:  street  width  plus  19.68  feet. 


Maximum 

Width  of 

V  >    X  Vl  111    \_/  A. 

l  nnstnnt 

li  pi  flit  bflow 

street 

factor 

cornice 

(feet) 

(feet) 

(feet) 

3.28 

T.-,  fxi 
19  •  Oo 

22 .96 

6.56 

I9.68 

26.24 

9.84 

19.68 

29.52 

13  .  12 

IQ.68 

32.80 

16.4O 

19.68 

36.08 

19.68 

19.68 

39- 3^ 

22.96 

19.68 

42.64 

26.24 

19.68 

45-92 

29.52 

19.68 

49.20 

32.80 

I9.68 

52.48 

36.08 

19.68 

55.76 

39-36 

19.68 

59.04 

On  streets  over  39.36  feet  wide  the  maximum  height  below  the 
cornice  line  may  not  exceed  58.64  feet  plus  one-quarter  of  the 
amount  by  which  the  width  of  the  street  exceeds  39.36  feet. 

The  following  table  shows  the  maximum  height  below  the  cornice 
line  on  streets  39.36  feet  wide  and  over.  Formula  to  ascertain 
maximum  height :  58.64  feet  plus  one-quarter  of  excess  of  street 
width  over  39.36  feet. 


Width  of 
street 
(feet) 

Variable 
factor* 
(feet) 

Constant 
factor 
(58.54  feet) 
(feet) 

Maximum 
height  below 
cornice 
(feet) 

39-36" 

59-04 

42.64 

.82 

58.64 

59-46 

45.92 

1 .64 

58.64 

60.28 

49.20 

2.46 

58.64 

61 . 10 

52.48 

3.28 

58.64 

61 .92 

55- 7^> 

4.  TO 

58.64 

62 . 70 

59-04 

4-92 

58.64 

63.56 

62.32 

5-74 

S8.64 

64.38 

65.60 

6.56 

58.64 

65.20 

Over  65.60 

65.60 

One-quarter  of  excess  of  street  width  over  30.36  feet. 


RESTRICTIONS  IN  PARIS 


129 


Height  above  the  cornice  line 

The  maximum  height  above  the  cornice  line  is  determined  by  a 
mansard.  The  outline  of  this  mansard  depends  on  two  planes,  one 
of  which  is  defined  by  a  circular  arc  tangent  to  the  highest  point  of 
the  plane  below  the  cornice,  and  the  other  by  a  line  drawn  at  an 
angle  of  45  degrees  to  the  horizontal  and  tangent  to  this  circular 
arc. 

On  streets  39.36  feet  and  less  in  width  the  radius  of  this  arc  may 
not  exceed  19.68  feet.  On  streets  over  39.36  feet  in  width  the  radius 
may  not  exceed  one-half  of  the  street  width  and  a  maximum  of 
32.80  feet. 

A  tangent  to  this  circular  arc  drawn  at  an  inclination  of  45  de- 
grees to  the  horizontal  may  be  projected  until  it  intersects  either  a 
vertical  line  bisecting  the  depth  of  the  building  at  the  ground  floor 
level  or  a  similar  tangent  of  another  such  circular  arc  constructed 
in  the  same  manner  at  the  rear  of  the  building.  Diagram  XVI 
illustrates  the  maximum  height  of  the  facade  on  streets  of  different 
widths  and  XVII  the  different  ways  in  which  the  front  tangent 
may  intersect  the  rear  tangent  or  the  vertical  bisecting  the  depth  of 
the  building.  All  of  the  diagrams  in  this  paper  are  taken  from  the 
book  by  Louis  Bonnier  entitled  "  Les  Reglements  de  Voirie." 

Rear  height 

If  adequate  provision  is  made  for  the  open  court  space  required, 
the  height  below  the  cornice  line  may  be  the  same  in  the  rear  as  in 
the  front  of  a  building.  The  rear  of  the  building  may  be  built  in 
the  form  of  retreating  stories  to  provide  the  necessary  court  space. 
An  arc  and  tangent  may  be  superimposed  on  the  top  of  each  section 
of  wall  set  back  to  provide  a  rear  mansard  as  shown  in  Diagram 
XVIII. 

The  length  of  the  radius  for  the  rear  arc  is  identical  with  that 
for  the  front  arc  in  the  case  of  very  low  and  very  high  buildings, 
but  in  the  case  of  buildings  with  a  height  of  between  40  and  60 
feet  below  the  cornice  line  it  is  greater. 

Exceptions  from  height  limit 

In  the  case  of  private  buildings  of  a  monumental  character,  or 
in  the  case  of  buildings  to  be  used  for  the  purposes  of  art,  science 
or  industry,  the  prefect  of  the  Seine  may,  with  the  approval  of  the 
"  conseil  general  dcs  batiments  civils  "  and  of  the  minister  of  the 
interior,  authorize  exceptions  from  the  general  height  limit. 

Definition  of  height 

The  height  is  measured  through  the  middle  of  the  facade  from 
the  level  of  the  sidewalk  or  pavement  at  the  foot  of  the  faqade.  A 
fraction  of  a  meter  (3.28  feet)  in  the  width  of  the  street  is  taken  as 
one  meter.    The  facade  of  buildings  on  sloping  streets  must  be  di- 


DIAGRAM  XVI 





n. 


nr. 


DIAGRAM  XVIII 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


vided  into  sections  not  exceeding  98.40  feet  in  length ;  each  section 
to  have  its  height  computed  separately.  The  street  width  at  a  street 
intersection  is  considered  as  the  width  of  the  open  space  between 
the  facades  measured  at  right  angles  to  each  facade  respectively. 
The  additional  height  thus  acquired  by  a  building  is,  however, 
allowed  only  that  portion  of  the  building  opposite  the  open  space, 
as  illustrated  in  Diagram  XIX.  This  tends  to  make  all  the  facades 
at  a  street  intersection  of  a  uniform  height. 


DIAGRAM  XIX 


A  building,  however,  upon  a  corner  of  two  streets  of  unequal 
width  and  of  any  slope  may  have  the  same  height  on  the  narrow 
street  as  that  accorded  upon  the  wide  street  for  a  distance  back 
from  the  wide  street  not  exceding  il/2  times  the  width  of  the  narrow 
street.  Where  the  intersecting  streets  are  of  equal  width,  but  of 
different  slopes,  the  height  is  taken  as  the  average  for  the  middle 
points  of  each  frontage.  Frontages  on  which  the  height  is  taken 
conformably  to  the  level  of  the  street  on  which  such  frontages  face, 
as  for  separate  buildings,  need  not  be  reckoned  as  in  determining 
such  middle  point. 

A  building  comprised  between  streets  of  different  widths  or  of 


RESTRICTIONS  IN  PARIS 


133 


different  levels  has  the  height  of  each  facade  determined  by  the 
street  upon  which  it  faces  except  where  the  extreme  distance  between 
the  two  facades  does  not  exceed  49.20  feet,  when  the  facade  upon 
the  narrower  or  lower  street  may  be  built  up  to  the  same  height  as 
that  allowed  upon  the  wider  or  higher  street. 

Where  portions  of  a  building  project  beyond  or  are  built  back  of 
the  building  line,  the  height  is  based  upon  a  street  width  equal  to 
the  distance  between  the  extreme  projection  of  the  facade  and  the 
street  line  opposite.  A  fraction  of  a  meter  (3.28  feet)  is  taken  as  a 
meter  in  calculating  this  distance.  The  set-back  provision  applies 
to  the  building  or  any  section  of  the  building,  at  the  ground  story 
or  any  other  story,  provided  a  solid  and  substantial  wall  one  meter 
(3.28  feet)  high  is  built  on  the  street  line. 

Buildings  not  erected  to  the  maximum  height  allowed  below 
and  above  the  cornice  Hue  may  be  constructed  in  all  parts  as  the 
builder  may  desire,  subject  to  the  provision,  however,  that  they  do 
not  project  beyond  the  planes  set  down  in  the  maximum  limitations. 

The  height  of  the  ground  story  and  of  the  story  above  the  ground 
story  may  not  be  less  than  9.18  feet  in  the  clear.  The  height  of  the 
other  stories  may  not  be  less  than  8.53  feet  in  the  clear.  For  the 
top  story  of  a  building  this  height  applies  to  the  highest  part  of  a 
sloping  ceiling,  but  every  room  with  a  sloping  ceiling  must  have  at 
least  21.52  square  feet  of  level  ceiling. 

The  highest  point  of  party  walls  and  chimneys  may  not  be  more 
than  3.28  feet  above  a  horizontal  tangent  to  the  circular  arc.  Chim- 
neys must  also  be  set  back  at  least  3.28  feet  behind  the  front  line. 
Projections  beyond  the  facade  of  buildings  are  regulated  by  the 
width  of  the  street. 

Court  space 

The  least  dimension  and  the  minimum  area  are  prescribed  for 
all  courts  that  furnish  light  and  air  to  habitable  rooms.  In  the 
case  of  kitchens  these  requirements  are  relaxed,  the  least  dimension 
and  the  minimum  area  being  only  about  half  as  stringent  as  those 
demanded  for  other  habitable  rooms. 

Light  shafts  may  be  provided  to  light  rooms  that  cannot  be 
used  for  the  purposes  of  habitation.  These  light  shafts  may,  how- 
ever, light  the  janitor's  kitchen  on  the  ground  floor  and  the  habitable 
rooms  on  the  top  story  of  a  building.  The  minimum  required  area 
of  a  light  shaft  is  86.06  square  feet;  the  least  dimension  5.33  feet. 

Owners  of  adjoining  buildings  may  make  an  agreement  to  have 
courts  and  light  shafts  in  common,  the  least  dimension  and  minimum 
area  of  such  courts  and  shafts  to  be  the  same  as  those  required  in 
the  case  of  a  single  building.  When  two  or  more  owners  enter  into 
such  an  agreement,  they  must  notify  the  prefect  of  the  Seine  of 
their  agreement,  and  execute  with  the  city  of  Paris,  before  com- 
mencing the  building,  an  agreement  to  maintain  such  courts  and 
shafts  for  their  common  use. 


134 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


The  provisions  relating  to  the  height  of  buildings  and  court 
space  are  summarized  in  the  following  table : 


Courts 


Height 

Length 

Length 

Dwelling  Rooms 

Kitchens 

Width 

below  cornice 

of 

of 

t —  A 

r 

of 

line  (rear 

front 

rear 

Least 

Least 

street 

and  front) 

radius 

radius 

dimension 

Area 

dimension 

Area 

(feet) 

(feet) 

(feet) 

(feet) 

(feet) 

(sq.  ft.) 

(feet) 

(sq.  ft.) 

3.28 

22.96 

19.68 

19.68 

13.12 

322.80 

6.56 

161 .40 

6 .  56 

1 9 . 68 

1 9 . 68 

13- 12 

322.80 

6.56 

161 .40 

9-84 

29.52 

19.68 

19.68 

13-12 

322.80 

6.56 

161 .40 

13.12 

32.80 

19.68 

19.68 

13.12 

322 . 80 

6.56 

161 .40 

16.40 

36.08 

19.68 

19.68 

13- 12 

322.80 

6.56 

161 .40 

19.68 

39-36 

1 9 . 68 

19.68 

13.12 

322.80 

6.56 

161 .40 

22.96 

42.64 

19.68 

21.32 

14.21 

358.91 

7.08 

179-26 

26.24 

45-92 

19.68 

22 .96 

15-30 

394-47 

7.64 

197-23 

29.52 

49.20 

19.68 

24. 60 

16.40 

430.34 

8.20 

215.20 

32.80 

52.48 

19.68 

26. 24 

17.49 

466. 50 

8.76 

233.06 

36.08 

55-76 

19.68 

27.88 

18.58 

502 .06 

9.28 

251-03 

39.36 

59-04 

19.68 

29.52 

19.68 

537-92 

9.84 

269.00 

42.64 

59-46 

21 .32 

29.52 

19.68 

537-92 

9.84 

269.00 

45-92 

60.28 

22 .96 

29.52 

19.68 

537-92 

9.84 

269.00 

49-20 

61.10 

24.60 

29.52 

19.68 

537-92 

9.84 

269.00 

52.48 

61  .92 

26 . 24 

31.16 

20.77 

574.08 

10.36 

286.86 

55-76 

62 . 70 

27.88 

31.16 

20.77 

574.08 

10.36 

286.86 

59-04 

63.56 

29.52 

31.16 

20.77 

574-08 

10.36 

286.86 

62.32 

64.38 

31.16 

31.16 

20.77 

574.o8 

10.36 

286.86 

65.60 

65.20 

32.80 

32.80 

21.86 

609 . 64 

10.92 

304-83 

Over  65.60 

65  .60 

32.80 

32.80 

21 .86 

609.64 

10.92 

304.83 

BOSTON 

Boston  has  resorted  to  both  the  police  power  and  the  power  of 
eminent  domain  in  restricting  the  height  of  buildings. 

The  height  of  buildings  has  been  limited  under  the  police  powers 
of  the  state  and  without  compensation  to  the  owners  where  the 
limitation  on  height  has  applied  to  the  entire  city  or  to  some  con- 
siderable area  of  the  city. 

The  height  of  buildings  has  been  limited  under  the  power  of 
eminent  domain  and  with  compensation  to  the  owners  where  the 
buildings  upon  particular  streets,  limited  areas,  or  individual  estates 
have  been  subjected  to  special  and  more  stringent  limitations  of 
height  than  those  applicable  to  buildings  in  the  territory  outside 
these  small  restricted  areas. 

I — Restrictions  Imposf.d  on  Height  Under  the  Police  Power 
X.  Special  fire  regulations 

Under  the  provisions  of  the  building  law  (stat  i<;°7.  ch.  550) 
all  first-class  buildings  have  to  be  of  fireproof  construction.  Build- 
ings of  the  first  class  include  all  buildings  adapted  for  habitation 
more  than  five  stories  in  height  and  exceeding  65  feet  above  the 
basement  or  covering  more  than  5000  superficial  square  feet  on 
the  ground  floor  regardless  of  height.  No  building  of  the  first  class 
may  be  erected  over  100  feet  in  height  which  is  to  be  used  above 
the  first  story  for  warehouses  or  stores  or  for  the  storage  or  sale 


RESTRICTIONS  IN  BOSTON 


135 


of  merchandise  (stat.  1890,  ch.  308).  No  wharves,  sheds  on 
wharves,  market  sheds  or  temporary  sheds  may  be  erected,  if  of 
wood,  to  a  greater  height  than  27  feet.  Outside  the  building  limits 
the  height  of  wooden  buildings  is  restricted  at  45  feet  for  dwelling 
houses  and  at  55  feet  for  other  buildings.  (Revised  Ordinances, 
1898,  ch.  45,  sees.  34  and  37.) 

2.  Height  of  buildings  restricted  to  125  feet 

The  height  of  buildings  has  been  limited  in  Boston  since  1891. 
In  that  year  the  state  legislature  passed  a  general  act  (ch.  355) 
applying  to  all  cities  in  the  commonwealth.  This  act  forbids  any 
building  from  being  erected  or  increased  to  a  greater  height  than 
125  feet.  The  restriction  applies,  with  minor  exceptions,  to  all 
buildings  without  any  reference  to  their  location  or  use.  At  the 
time  of  its  passage  there  were  but  two  buildings  in  Boston  that 
exceeded  125  feet  in  height. 

3.  Height  limited  to  2^  times  the  width  of  the  abutting  street 

In  1892  the  legislature  imposed  more  stringent  limitations  on 
the  height  of  buildings  in  Boston.  Under  the  provisions  of  this  act 
(ch.  419,  sec.  25)  the  height  of  a  building  measured  from  the  grade 
of  the  street  may  in  no  case  exceed  2^/2  times  the  width  of  the 
widest  street  or  square  on  which  it  fronts.  The  width  of  a  street 
is  defined  as  being  the  distance  between  the  face  of  the  building 
and  the  lawfully  established  line  of  the  street  on  the  other  side. 
In  case  the  widest  street  is  of  an  uneven  width,  the  average  width 
opposite  the  building  is  taken.  Where  the  effective  width  of  a 
street  has  been  increased  by  an  area  or  set-back,  the  space  between 
the  face  of  the  main  building  and  the  lawfully  established  line  of 
the  street  may  be  built  upon  to  the  height  of  20  feet. 

The  effect  of  these  limitations  may  be  best  illustrated  by  quoting 
from  the  report  submitted  by  the  commission  on  the  height  of 
buildings,  December  3,  1904: 

"  The  situation  created  by  the  general  laws  permitting  the  erection  of 
buildings  in  this  city  within  certain  limits  to  the  height  of  125  feet  is  that 
by  1904  such  buildings  have  become  very  common  in  the  down-town  or  busi- 
ness sections  of  the  city;  in  fact,  so  common  that  the  owners  of  real  estate 
in  that  part  of  the  city  are,  when  rebuilding,  quite  generally  compelled  in 
self-defense  to  carry  their  buildings  up  to  the  125-foot  limit  to  which  adjoin- 
ing or  neighboring  buildings  have  already  been  erected.  So  far  as  the  rest 
of  the  city  is  concerned,  both  the  parts  still  exclusively  residential  in  char- 
acter and  the  parts  (including  such  districts  as  the  Back  Bay)  into  which 
business  is  advancing,  there  have  so  far  been  but  few  high  buildings  erected; 
and  these,  at  least  all  over  100  feet  in  height,  have  not,  according  to  the  best 
information  that  we  have  been  able  to  secure,  proved  successful  investments. 
The  erection  of  half  a  dozen  buildings  of  this  character  on  the  Back  Bay 
indicates,  however,  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  some  landowners  to  repeat 
in  the  residential  districts  of  the  city  these  conditions  which  have  for  some 
time  obtained  down-town." 


J36 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


4.  Adoption  of  the  districting  system;  Acts  of  1904  and  1905 

In  1904  an  act  (ch.  333)  was  passed  by  the  legislature  pro- 
viding for  the  appointment  of  a  height  of  building  commission  by 
the  mayor  of  Boston.  This  commission  consisted  of  three  mem- 
bers, Messrs.  Nathan  Matthews,  Jr.,  chairman,  Joseph  A.  Conry, 
and  Henry  Parkman. 

The  commission  was  authorized  to  hold  public  hearings  and  to 
divide  the  city  into  two  districts  which  were  to  be  known  respec- 
tively as  District  A  and  District  B.  The  boundaries  of  these  dis- 
tricts were  to  be  fixed  and  recorded  in  the  registry  of  deeds  in 
Suffolk  county  by  the  commission  within  one  month  of  its  appoint- 
ment. These  boundaries  were  to  remain  unchanged  for  a  period 
of  fifteen  years. 

(a)  Appeals — Persons  aggrieved  by  the  order  establishing  the 
boundaries  of  the  two  districts  were  given  a  period  of  thirty  days 
within  which  to  appeal  to  the  commission  for  a  revision.  Appeals 
were  to  be  acted  upon  by  the  commission  within  six  months  from 
the  time  of  its  appointment.  If  the  hearing  of  an  appeal  resulted 
in  a  revision  of  the  original  order,  the  revision  was  to  be  entered 
with  the  registry  of  deeds  as  dating  back  to  the  date  of  the  original 
record. 

(b)  Boundaries  of  the  districts — The  boundaries  of  District  A 
were  to  be  laid  out  in  such  a  manner  as  to  include  those  parts  of 
the  city  in  which  all  or  the  greater  part  of  the  buildings  were  used 
for  business  or  commercial  purposes ;  those  of  District  B  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  include  those  parts  of  the  city  in  which  all  or  the 
greater  part  of  the  buildings  were  used  for  residential  purposes,  or 
for  other  purposes  not  business  or  commercial. 

With  a  few  minor  exceptions  the  act  restricted  the  height  of 
buildings  above  the  grade  of  the  street  to.  125  feet  in  District  A 
and  to  80  feet  in  District  B. 

No  restriction  was  placed  on  the  height  of  coal  hoists,  grain 
elevators  and  sugar  refineries  in  District  A. 

District  A,  as  laid  out  by  the  commission  in  its  orders  of  July 

5,  1904,  and  December  3,  1904,  comprised  certain  parts  of  East 
Boston,  Charlcstown  and  Boston  proper,  respectively.  These  parts 
were  only  separated  from  each  other  by  certain  arms  of  the  harbor. 
District  A  included  the  down-town  business  section  and  practically 
the  whole  waterfront.  District  B  included  the  South  End,  the  West 
End,  Beacon  Hill,  the  Back  Bay  and  the  suburban  parts  of  the  city. 

The  waterfront  was  placed  in  District  A  because  it  was  occupied 
to  a  large  extent  by  coal  hoists,  grain  elevators  and  sugar  refineries — 
structures  which  were  exempt  by  the  act  from  any  height  limitation 
whatever  in  District  A  but  restricted  to  80  feet  in  District  B.  To 
serve  their  purpose  such  buildings  have  to  exceed  a  height  of  80 
feet;  for  this  reason  the  commission  placed  them  in  District  A. 

The  commission  refused  to  designate  small  business  areas  in 


RESTRICTIONS  IN  BOSTON 


137 


the  residential  section  as  District  A  or  to  designate  small  residential 
areas  in  the  business  section  as  District  B. 

The  powers  of  the  commission  were  construed  as  being  too 
narrow  to  permit  the  designation  of  business  streets  in  District  B 
(and  of  the  contiguous  territory  on  either  side  for  a  distance  of 
about  100  feet)  as  belonging  to  District  A.  Such  a  course  also 
impressed  the  commission  as  being  of  very  doubtful  constitutionality 
under  the  police  power  of  the  state.  The  owners  of  property  in 
the  immediate  rear  of  the  property  fronting  in  these  streets,  more- 
over, protested  vigorously  against  gridironing  the  city  with  long 
lines  of  125-foot  buildings. 

The  commission,  however,  recognized  a  reasonable  demand  for 
buildings  of  a  height  between  80  and  100  feet  on  the  main  thorough- 
fare in  the  residential  sections  of  the  city  and  recommended  that 
the  law  be  amended  to  permit  the  erection  of  such  buildings. 

The  commission  said  in  making  this  recommendation  in  its 
report  of  December  3,  1904: 

"  We  believe  that  the  limit  imposed  on  buildings  in  these  districts  by  the 
acts  of  1904  is  too  low  for  universal  application,  and  that  buildings  higher 
than  80  feet  should  be  allowed  on  the  wider  streets  in  these  sections  of  the 
city.  We  are  satisfied  that  there  is  a  general  and  reasonable  demand  for 
buildings  on  these  streets  between  80  and  100  feet  in  height  and  that  the  erec- 
tion of  such  buildings  should  be  permitted  under  such  restrictions  as  will 
secure  the  main  purpose  of  the  law  of  1904.  That  purpose  was,  as  we  under- 
stand it,  to  prevent  the  erection  of  very  high  buildings  in  those  parts  of  the 
city  which,  unlike  the  down-town  section,  are  not  yet  condemned  by  the 
number  of  high  buildings  already  erected  to  the  perpetual  toleration  of  this 
evil.  On  the  other  hand,  an  80-foot  building  seems  to  us  too  low  for  many 
of  the  uses  to  which  land  abutting  on  the  main  thoroughfares  of  travel  in 
this  city  is  reasonably  adapted,  while,  if  the  extreme  limit  of  buildings 
throughout  District  B  is  kept  at  80  feet,  and  the  limit  of  second-class  build- 
ings kept  at  70  feet,  there  will  be  no  sufficient  inducement  to  the  erection  of 
first-class  or  fireproof  buildings  in  any  section  of  the  city  outside  of  Dis- 
trict A.  Moreover,  a  height  limit  not  exceeding  100  feet,  if  confined  to  the 
broader  streets  and  to  buildings  of  sufficient  area  or  base,  would  be  free 
from  the  objections  which  may  forcibly  be  urged  against  buildings  of  that 
height  on  narrower  streets,  and  so  narrow  themselves  as  to  be  a  special  menace 
to  life  and  property  in  case  of  fire.  We  think  that  the  conditions  of  the  prob- 
lem, as  well  as  the  reasonable  demands  of  all  reasonable  property  owners,  can 
be  fully  met  by  permitting  the  erection  of  buildings  in  District  B  to  a  height 
not  exceeding  100  feet  in  any  case,  not  exceeding  in  any  case  the  width 
between  the  front  of  buildings,  and  bearing  some  reasonable  ratio  to  the 
frontage  of  the  building  itself.  These  provisions  would  permit  the  erection 
of  100-foot  buildings  on  Boylston  Street  and  Huntington  Avenue,  and  of 
buildings  between  80  and  100  feet  on  Massachusetts  Avenue,  provided  the 
base  or  frontage  of  the  building  was  so  wide  as  to  bear  some  reasonable  rela- 
tion to  the  height  of  the  building. 

"  We  are  so  much  impressed  with  the  undesirable  conditions  which  have 
already  resulted  from  the  erection  of  high  buildings  in  the  down-town  section 
of  the  city,  and  so  thoroughly  convinced  that  a  general  and  uniform  limita- 
tion to  building  to  a  reasonable  height  is  neither  an  injury  to  real  estate 
values  nor  a  hindrance  to  the  growth  of  the  city,  that  if  it  were  not  for  the 
considerations  previously  suggested,  based  on  the  great  number  of  high 
buildings  already  erected  in  the  down-town  districts,  we  should  recommend 
a  maximum  limit  for  the  entire  city  of  100  feet. 

"  If  the  foregoing  suggestions  should  be  incorporated,  in  our  building  laws, 
we  believe  that  the  limitations  on  the  height  of  buildings  should  be  perma- 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


nent,  and  not  subject  to  change  at  the  end  of  fifteen  years  as  provided  in 
section  2  of  the  act  of  1904.11  If  the  limits  adopted  are  satisfactory,  we  see 
no  reason  for  holding  out  any  definite  expectation  of  a  change.  The  legisla- 
ture has,  and  will  continue  to  have  without  express  reservation,  the  power 
to  modify  the  law,  but  the  existence  of  a  statute  expressly  providing  for 
modifications  at  stated  periods  can  only  have  an  unsettling  effect  on  real 
estate  values." 

(c)  The  amendatory  act  of  1905 — In  accordance  with  this 
recommendation,  the  legislature  passed  an  amendatory  act  (ch. 
383)  in  1905  authorizing  the  erection  of  buildings  to  a  height  not 
exceeding  100  feet  in  such  parts  of  District  B  and  on  such  condi- 
tions as  the  commission  might  determine.  The  commission,  more- 
over, was  empowered  to  authorize  construction  of  buildings  125 
feet  in  height  in  that  portion  of  District  B  lying  within  50  feet  of 
District  A,  provided  the  boundary  line  between  the  two  districts  as 
established  by  the  commission  divided  adjoining  premises  owned 
by  the  same  person.  The  commission's  order  of  July  21,  1905, 
limits  the  construction  of  such  buildings  to  that  portion  of  Dis- 
trict B  which  lies  50  feet  westerly  from  the  boundary  line  running 
from  Columbus  Avenue  to  the  center  of  Boylston  Street.  The 
regulations  laid  down  by  the  commission  under  this  act  were  to  be 
recorded  with  the  registry  of  deeds  in  the  same  manner  as  those 
laid  down  under  the  act  of  1904.  The  restrictions  imposed  were 
also  to  expire  at  the  same  time  as  those  imposed  under  the  original 
act.  Persons  aggrieved  by  the  regulations  of  the  commission  were 
given  60  days  within  which  they  might  appeal  to  the  commission 
for  a  revision.  The  commission  was  obliged  to  act  upon  all  appeals 
before  its  dissolution  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1906. 

(d)  Provisions  controlling  the  erection  of  buildings  of  an  inter- 
mediate height  in  District  B — The  conditions  under  which  buildings 
may  be  erected  to  an  intermediate  height  between  80  and  100  feet 
in  District  B  are  found  in  the  commission's  order  of  July  21,  1905, 
and  November  20,  1905.  These  orders  affect  the  whole  of  District  B 
except  those  areas  in  which  the  height  of  buildings  had  been  re- 
stricted under  the  power  of  eminent  domain  and  which  will  be 
described  elsewhere  in  this  paper. 

Buildings  over  80  feet  in  height  may  be  erected  only  on  streets 
exceeding  64  feet  in  width.  Buildings  on  streets  exceeding  this 
widtli  have  their  particular  height  limit  determined  by  two  con- 
siderations:  (1)  the  width  of  the  adjoining  street;  and  (2)  the 
width  of  the  building. 

11  The  commission  on  building  laws  in  its  report  of  January.  1905,  page  13. 
made  a  similar  recommendation.  "  We  recommend."  said  the  commission, 
"the  repeal  of  so  much  of  chapter  333  of  the  acts  of  the  year  1904  as  fixed 
a  time  limit  for  the  operation  of  its  report.  We  make  this  recommendation 
because  we  believe  that  the  discussion  which  the  operation  of  that  act  has 
raised  has  thrown  sufficient  new  light  upon  the  subject  to  enable  the  city 
authorities  to  secure  by  ordinance,  when  necessary  to  adapt  the  law  to 
changing  situations,  a  more  satisfactory  result  than  can  be  accomplished  by 
simply  maintaining  the  present  law  for  the  period  of  fifteen  years." 


RESTRICTIONS  IN  BOSTON 


139 


1.  Buildings  may  be  erected  on  streets  exceeding  64  feet  in 
width  to  a  height  equal  to  1  %  times  the  width  of  the  widest  abutting 
street,  but  in  no  case  may  the  height  exceed  100  feet. 

2.  No  building  may  be  erected  to  a  greater  height  than  80  feet 
unless  the  width  of  the  building  on  each  and  every  abutting  public 
street  is  at  least  one-half  of  its  height. 

The  effect  of  these  requirements  is  to  limit  the  erection  of  100- 
foot  buildings  to  plots  with  a  minimum  width  of  50  feet  fronting 
on  streets  with  a  minimum  width  of  80  feet.  A  building  erected 
on  a  plot  less  than  50  feet  in  width  on  such  a  street  could  be  raised 
only  to  a  height  equal  to  twice  its  width.  The  maximum  height 
permitted  a  building  on  a  40-foot  lot  under  these  conditions  would 
be  the  same  as  the  general  height  limit  for  the  whole  of  District  B — 
that  is,  80  feet.  In  permitting  the  erection  of  higher  buildings  on 
the  wider  frontages — a  differential  height  was  established  which, 
under  the  most  favorable  circumstances,  might  equal  25  per  cent 
of  that  allowed  on  the  margin — this  provision  placed  a  great 
premium  on  plottage.  The  minimum  frontage  width  required  for 
the  erection  of  buildings  of  different  heights  is  indicated  in  the 
table  given  below : 


Height  of 

Minimum 

Minimum  frontage 

building 

street  width 

width 

(feet) 

(feet) 

(feet) 

80 

81 

64V3 

40V2 

85 

68 

42V2 

90 

72 

45 

95 

76 

47x/2 

100 

80 

50 

The  fact  that  a  building  in  order  to  get  the  benefit  of  additional 
height  is  required  to  possess  this  minimum  frontage  on  each  and 
every  abutting  public  street  materially  adds  to  the  stringency  of  this 
provision.  In  many  cases  it  might  result  in  buildings  fronting  on 
two  or  more  streets  being  restricted  to  a  lower  height  than  that 
allowed  adjoining  buildings  which  front  on  only  one  street.  The 
provision  seems  undesirable  from  an  esthetic  point  of  view  as  well — 
where  the  frontages  are  of  an  uneven  width  it  militates  against 
uniformity  in  sky-line. 

The  height  of  a  building  is  to  be  measured  from  the  mean  grade 
of  the  curbs  of  all  the  abutting  streets.  The  average  width  opposite 
the  building  is  taken  where  the  street  is  of  an  uneven  width.  The 
width  of  a  street  includes  the  width  of  any  space  on  the  same  side 
of  the  street  as  the  building  and  upon  which  no  building  can  be 
lawfully  erected  by  virtue  of  any  building  line  established  by  the 
board  of  street  commissioners,  the  board  of  park  commissioners, 
the  commonwealth  or  the  city.    All  these  streets,  or  portions  of 


140 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


streets  upon  which  buildings  may  lawfully  be  erected  on  one  side 
only,  are  considered  as  of  a  width  of  80  feet.  In  the  case  of  irregu- 
lar or  triangular  open  spaces  formed  by  the  intersection  of  streets, 
the  width  of  the  streets  is  taken  as  the  width  of  the  widest  street 
entering  the  space  at  its  point  of  entrance. 

By  an  act  passed  in  1907  (ch.  416)  Rutherford  Avenue,  Charles- 
town,  is  considered  as  an  80-foot  street  in  so  far  as  the  buildings 
on  the  westerly  and  southwesterly  side  are  concerned,  thus  allowing 
them  a  maximum  height  of  100  feet. 

(e)  Appeals  from  the  commission's  orders — Only  three  appeals 
were  made  to  the  commission  by  property  owners  for  a  reconsidera- 
tion of  its  orders.  One  of  these  appeals  was  acted  upon  favorably 
by  the  commission.  Before  the  passage  of  the  acts  of  1904  and 
1905  the  city  had  acquired  a  site  for  schoolhouse  purposes  in  the 
area  later  laid  out  by  the  commission  as  District  B.  The  city  had 
planned  the  erection  of  a  100-foot  schoolhouse  on  this  site.  Dis- 
tricting the  height  of  this  building  as  80  feet  would  have  resulted 
in  considerable  expense  and  inconvenience  to  the  city,  and  it  appealed 
for  a  revision  of  the  commission's  order  placing  this  plot  in  the 
80-foot  area  of  District  B.  The  commission  reconsidered  its  action 
and  decreed  that  so  long  as  this  site  was  used  for  schoolhouse  pur- 
poses a  100-foot  building  might  be  erected. 

II — Restrictions  Imposed  on  Height  under  the  Power  of 
Eminent  Domain. 

The  limitations  on  the  height  of  buildings  described  above  apply 
to  the  entire  city  with  the  exception  of  three  small  areas : 

1.  An  area  contiguous  to  certain  parkways,  boulevards  and 
public  ways; 

2.  An  area  in  the  vicinity  of  Copley  Square ;  and 

3.  An  area  in  the  vicinity  of  the  State  House. 

The  height  of  buildings  in  these  three  instances  has  been  limited 
under  the  power  of  eminent  domain.  These  areas  have  been  sub- 
jected to  more  stringent  restrictions  than  the  surrounding  territory, 
where  the  height  of  buildings  has  been  limited  under  the  police 
power,  in  order  to  provide  superior  light,  air  and  view  to  adjacent 
streets  or  parks  of  a  special  character  that  have  been  created  at  con- 
siderable expense.  Since  these  rights  in  the  light,  air  and  view  over 
adjacent  land  have  been  treated  in  the  nature  of  an  easement  over 
such  land,  the  city,  in  acquiring  them,  has  always  done  so,  not  under 
the  police  power,  but  under  the  power  of  eminent  domain. 

1.  The  area  contiguous  to  certain  parkways,  boulevards  and  pub- 
lic ways 

In  [896  a  building  known  as  Haddon  Hall  was  erected  on  Com- 
monwealth Avenue  to  a  height  of  125  feet.   The  public  protest  that 


RESTRICTIONS  IN  BOSTON 


141 


followed  the  construction  of  this  building  induced  the  legislature 
immediately  to  pass  an  act  (stat.  1896,  ch.  313,  amended  by  stat. 
1897,  ch.  379,  and  by  stat.  1905,  ch.  383)  prohibiting  any  repetition 
of  the  offense.  This  act,  which  can  be  adopted  by  any  city  in  the 
commonwealth  at  its  own  option,  empowers  the  park  commissioners 
to  establish  a  building  line  at  a  distance  not  exceeding  25  feet  from 
the  exterior  line  of  any  parkway,  boulevard  or  public  way  bordering 
on  a  park.  When  this  building  line  is  established  by  the  park  com- 
missioners, the  extreme  height  to  which  buildings  may  be  erected 
on  such  streets  shall  be  70  feet  or  such  other  height  as  the  city 
council  or  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  may  determine.  The  70-foot 
limit  authorized  under  this  act  does  not  apply  to  the  buildings  on 
those  parkways,  boulevards  or  public  ways  bordering  on  a  park 
where  no  building  line  has  been  established  by  the  park  commis- 
sioners.   (Williams  v.  Boston,  190  Mass.  541 ;  March  1,  1906.) 

The  city  council  of  Boston  accepted  the  provisions  of  this  act 
on  May  18,  1896,  and  the  park  commissioners  on  August  3,  1896, 
imposed  a  building  line  of  20  feet  along  both  sides  of  Commonwealth 
Avenue,  between  Arlington  Street  and  Beacon  Street.  No  suits 
were  brought  for  damages  due  to  this  restriction  of  the  height  of 
buildings  and  the  time  for  filing  such  suits  has  expired.  That  the 
restriction  cost  the  city  no  damages  is  probably  explained  by  the 
fact  that  the  land  was  already  subject  to  a  similar  servitude  imposed 
by  covenants  in  the  deeds  of  the  property  conveyed  by  the  original 
owners.  The  park  commissioners  have  not  imposed  building  lines 
on  any  other  parkway,  boulevard  or  public  way  bordering  on  a  park 
under  the  provisions  of  this  act. 

2.  The  area  in  the  vicinity  of  Copley  Square 

Considerable  uncertainty  seems  to  have  existed  in  Boston  as  to 
just  on  what  streets  the  height  of  buildings  was  limited  by  the  park- 
way act  of  1896.  It  was  this  uncertainty  that  caused  the  contro- 
versy that  arose  between  the  city  and  the  owners  of  Westminster 
Chambers,  a  building  erected  on  Copley  Square  during  the  winter 
of  1897-98.  The  public-spirited  citizens  that  protested  against  the 
erection  of  this  building  were  under  the  impression  that  this  act 
restricted  all  buildings  on  any  parkway,  boulevard  or  public  way 
bordering  on  a  park  to  a  maximum  height  of  70  feet.  The  owners 
of  Westminster  Chambers  disputed  this  view,  claiming  that  they 
had  a  right  to  erect  a  building  of  any  height  they  chose  on  the  plot 
so  long  as  it  did  not  exceed  125  feet  in  height. 

In  1897  a  trust  company  purchased  certain  estates  in  Copley 
Square  on  which  it  proposed  to  erect  a  120-foot  building.  The 
building  commissioner  issued  the  permit  for  the  building  in  July, 
1897.  The  proposed  building  was  opposite  the  Public  Library  be- 
tween the  Art  Museum  and  Trinity  Church.  The  public,  supposing 
that  the  parkway  act  of  1896  protected  the  square  against  any 


1 42 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


invasion  of  high  buildings,  immediately  offered  vigorous  protest 
against  the  construction  of  the  building. 

The  greater  part  of  the  district  adjoining  Copley  Square  was  at 
that  time  devoted  to  charitable,  religious  and  educational  purposes. 
Its  total  area  is  1,128,868  square  feet.  Of  this  area,  557,164  square 
feet  was  occupied  by  the  Public  Library,  the  Museum  of  Fine  Arts, 
the  Institute  of  Technology,  the  Society  of  Natural  History,  the 
Horace  Mann  School,  the  Harvard  Medical  School,  the  Art  Club, 
Trinity  Church,  Old  South  Church,  and  the  South  Congregational 
Church.  Millions  of  dollars  had  been  spent  by  the  city,  the  com- 
monwealth and  benevolent  persons  to  erect  beautiful  and  artistic 
buildings  on  the  square.  The  large  land  values  in  the  district  were 
primarily  due  to  these  expenditures. 

In  answer  to  public  criticism  the  owners  offered  to  erect  a  seven- 
story  building  instead  of  the  ten-story  120-foot  building  which  they 
proposed  to  erect,  and  then  sell  it  to  Trinity  Church  for  the  sum 
of  $1,085,000.  As  an  alternative  to  this  proposition,  the  owners 
offered  to  limit  the  building  at  seven  stories,  if  Trinity  Church  paid 
them  $75,000  a  story  for  each  of  the  three  stories  omitted — that  is, 
$225,000  for  the  three  stories. 

Trinity  Church  refused  to  accept  this  proposition.  It  chose  to 
petition  the  legislature  to  pass  a  special  act  limiting  the  height  of 
buildings  on  the  square. 

When  the  legislature  met  January  1,  1898,  the  foundations  of 
the  building  had  been  completed.  None  of  the  iron  work  or  of  the 
other  material  was  delivered  until  after  the  adjournment  of  the 
legislature. 

A  petition  was  promptly  presented  to  the  legislature  praying  for 
the  enactment  of  a  bill  that  would  limit  the  height  of  all  buildings 
within  500  feet  of  Copley  Square  to  80  feet.  This  petition  was 
signed  by  3000  persons  from  all  parts  of  the  state.  The  petitioners 
owned  taxable  property  valued  at  $75,000,000.  The  real  estate 
interests  favoring  the  bill,  including  those  in  and  about  Copley 
Square  which  were  exempt  from  taxation,  amounted  to  about 
$100,000,000.  The  remonstrants  attempted  to  obtain  a  bill  that 
would  permit  a  maximum  height  limit  of  100  feet.  Failing  in  this, 
they  offered  amendments  both  on  the  floor  of  the  House  and  of  the 
Senate  making  the  limitation  92  feet.  These,  too,  were  defeated. 
A  limit  of  96  feet  would  have  permitted  the  construction  of  West- 
minster Chambers  as  finally  erected. 

The  petitioners  maintained  that  the  public  had  a  right  to  control 
the  land  values  which  it  itself  had  created,  and  that  it  was  hardly 
decent  of  a  private  owner  to  erect  a  building  which  would  destroy 
the  value  of  those  amenities  in  the  neighborhood  that  had  given  his 
own  property  the  greater  share  of  its  value.  The  fire  hazard  from 
a  high  building,  they  stated,  would  be  a  perpetual  menace  to  the 
safety  of  the  valuable  collections  of  art  and  literature  stored  in  the 
museums  and  libraries  fronting  on  the  square.    They  also  claimed 


RESTRICTIONS  IN  BOSTON 


143 


that  a  high  building  would  impair,  if  not  destroy,  the  light  neces- 
sary for  proper  exhibition  and  use  of  these  collections. 

On  January  29,  1898,  the  park  commissioners  wrote  to  the  own- 
ers of  the  building  calling  their  attention  to  the  fact  that  St.  James 
Avenue  bordered  on  Copley  Square  and  that  their  plans  contemplated 
a  violation  of  the  70-foot  law.  It  seems  that  the  owners  paid  no 
attention  to  this  letter. 

On  March  29,  1898,  the  city  of  Boston  filed  a  bill  in  equity  in 
the  supreme  court  to  restrain  the  erection  of  the  building  beyond  a 
height  of  70  feet.  Counsel  for  Westminster  Chambers  appeared, 
and,  to  prevent  an  application  to  the  court  for  an  injunction,  orally 
agreed  that  pending  final  action  by  the  legislature  on  the  bill  before 
it  the  building  should  not  be  erected  to  a  greater  height  than  70  feet. 

In  spite  of  this  agreement  the  owners  proceeded  with  the  erec- 
tion of  their  building  above  a  level  of  70  feet.  When  this  was  called 
to  the  attention  of  the  city,  a  written  stipulation  was  filed  in  court 
signed  by  the  counsel  for  Westminster  Chambers  that  the  building 
should  not  be  erected  above  70  feet.  The  expressed  purpose  of  this 
agreement  was  to  avoid  the  necessity  for  a  temporary  injunction. 

On  May  23,  1898,  the  legislature  passed  an  act  (ch.  452)  that 
exempted  Copley  Square  from  the  70-foot  law.  This  act  restricted 
the  height  of  buildings  in  the  vicinity  of  Copley  Square  to  90  feet 
on  land  abutting  on  St.  James  Avenue,  between  Clarendon  and 
Dartmouth  Streets,  and  on  the  land  occupied  by  the  Pierce  Building, 
the  Public  Library,  and  the  Old  South  Church ;  and  to  100  feet  on 
land  abutting  on  Boylston  Street,  between  Clarendon  and  Dart- 
mouth Streets.  Such  sculptural  ornaments  as  were  approved  by  the 
board  of  park  commissioners  might  be  erected  above  these  limits. 

The  90-foot  limit  applied  to  the  east,  south,  and  west  sides,  and 
the  100  foot  limit  to  the  north  side  of  the  square.  In  determining 
these  limitations,  consideration  was  paid  to  the  shape  of  the  square, 
which,  owing  to  its  configuration,  allowed  a  greater  height  on  Boyls- 
ton Street  than  on  other  sides  without  injury  to  its  appearance.  A 
higher  limit,  moreover,  could  be  permitted  on  this  side  than  on  the 
others  without  materially  affecting  the  natural  light  of  the  park  to 
the  principal  buildings  fronting  on  it.  Trinity  Church,  the  Art 
Museum,  and  the  Public  Library  are  all  on  the  three  sides  of  the 
square  restricted  to  90-foot  buildings.  The  fact  that  these  buildings 
had  need  of  greater  fire  protection  than  those  on  the  north  side  was 
also  an  influential  factor  in  deciding  the  legislature  to  restrict  these 
buildings  to  a  lower  height. 

At  the  time  the  act  was  passed  the  steel  framework  of  the 
building  was  erected  to  a  height  of  seven  stories  and  the  masonry 
walls  were  completed  to  a  point  between  the  third  and  fourth  stories. 
Construction  above  the  seventh  story  had  been  suspended  in  accord- 
ance with  the  agreement. 

The  owners  now  had  to  solve  the  problem  of  adapting  their 
building  to  the  limitations  imposed  by  the  statute.    Their  original 


144 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


plans  had  called  for  a  ten-story  building  120  feet  in  height.  The  act 
just  passed  permitted  their  building  a  height  of  only  90  feet. 

Ihe  owners,  however,  on  July  16,  1898,  announced  their  inten- 
tion of  erecting  an  eight-story  building  96  feet  in  height.  On  the 
two  sides  fronting  on  the  abutting  streets  the  brick  walls  of  the 
building  were  to  extend  to  a  height  of  90  feet.  From  this  line  up- 
ward to  the  roof  the  plans  called  for  terra-cotta,  partly  in  relief,  to 
constitute  the  architrave,  frieze  and  cornice  of  the  building.  The 
owners  termed  the  six  feet  near  the  top  of  the  building  thus  orna- 
mented "  sculptured  ornaments."  The  two  sides  of  the  building  not 
fronting  on  streets  were  to  be  of  plain  brick  the  entire  height  of  the 
building. 

These  plans  were  submitted  to  the  park  commissioners,  who  on 
July  16,  1898,  returned  them  without  their  approval. 

The  owners,  however,  proceeded  with  the  erection  of  their  build- 
ing, according  to  these  plans. 

On  October  31,  1898,  after  the  completion  of  the  building,  which 
had  been  finished  about  the  middle  of  August,  the  park  commis- 
sioners passed  a  vote  approving  the  "  sculptured  ornaments  on  the 
building."  The  owners  claimed  that  the  approval  of  the  "  sculptured 
ornaments  "  by  the  park  commissioners  was  an  authorization  of  that 
portion  of  the  building  back  of  the  "  ornaments." 

The  city  law  department  refused  to  institute  a  suit  against  the 
owners  to  require  them  to  remove  that  portion  of  their  building 
above  the  90  foot  limit.  The  attorney-general,  therefore,  took  the 
matter  into  the  courts. 

The  owners  of  Westminster  Chambers  again  did  everything  in 
their  power  to  delay  the  decision  of  the  court  in  the  hope  that  they 
might  persuade  the  legislature  to  pass  a  special  act  exempting  their 
building  from  the  height  limit  imposed  on  other  buildings  about 
Copley  Square.  Bills  giving  them  this  privilege  were  introduced  in 
the  legislature  during  the  sessions  of  1899,'  1900,  1901,  1902  and 
1903.  The  bill  introduced  in  1900  was  passed  by  the  legislature 
under  circumstances  that  seem  to  have  amounted  to  a  scandal.  A 
certain  dinner  given  the  night  before  the  act  was  passed,  it  has 
been  intimated,  explained  the  vote  of  many  representatives.  Gover- 
nor Crane  vetoed  this  bill  on  the  ground  that  he  was  unable  "  to  give 
his  sanction  to  a  measure  intended  to  relieve  citizens  of  the  com- 
monwealth from  the  consequences  of  deliberate  disregard  of  the 
provisions  of  a  statute  of  the  general  court." 

In  March,  1901,  the  supreme  court  of  Massachusetts  in  render- 
ing its  decision  in  the  case  of  Attorney-General  v.  Williams  (174 
Mass.  476,  T/8  Mass.  330)  ordered  the  offending  portions  of  the 
building  to  be  taken  down  and  removed.  The  court  held  that  no 
part  of  the  main  structure,  not  even  the  roof,  could  extend  above 
the  90-foot  limit  set  by  the  act.  The  authority  of  the  park  commis- 
sioners to  approve  sculptured  ornaments  surmounting  a  90-foot 
building,  the  court  held,  did  not  empower  them  to  approve  the  orna- 


RESTRICTIONS  IN  BOSTON 


145 


mentation  of  the  architrave,  frieze  or  cornice  of  a  building  exceeding 
that  height.  The  order  of  the  state  court  was  sustained  by  the 
supreme  court  of  the  United  States  in  the  case  of  Williams  v.  Parker, 
188  U.  S.  491. 

The  owners  and  contractors  of  Westminster  Chambers  instituted 
a  suit  for  damages  against  the  city  soon  after  the  passage  of  the 
act  of  1898.  This  suit,  however,  was  not  brought  to  trial  until 
March,  1906.  Although  the  court  found  that  there  had  been  a  viola- 
tion of  the  statute  of  1898  by  the  owners  in  erecting  the  "  sculptured 
ornaments  "  approved  by  the  park  commissioners  to  a  height  ex- 
ceeding 90  feet,  it  found  that  they  had  acted  in  good  faith  on  the 
advice  of  counsel  in  an  attempt  to  make  the  best  possible  use  of 
their  unfinished  building  and  were  therefore  entitled  to  damages. 
(Williams  v.  Boston,  190  Mass.  541.) 

3.  The  area  in  the  vicinity  of  the  State  House 

In  1899  tne  legislature  passed  an  act  (ch.  457)  limiting  the  height 
of  buildings  on  three  small  blocks  west  of  the  State  House  to  70 
feet. 

The  restricted  area  included  the  tract  of  land  north  of  Beacon 
Street  and  south  of  Myrtle  Street,  between  Joy  Street  on  the  west 
and  Hancock  Street  and  Hancock  Avenue  on  the  east.  In  1901  an 
amendatory  act  (ch.  525)  was  passed  restricting  the  height  of  build- 
ings in  a  district  east  of  the  State  House.  By  this  act  the  height 
of  buildings  abutting  on  or  within  42  feet  of  Bowdoin  Street  be- 
tween Allston  and  Beacon  Streets  was  limited  at  100  feet  and  those 
within  95  feet  of  Beacon  Street  between  the  Claflin  Building  and 
Park  Street  at  70  feet. 

At  the  time  that  the  original  act  was  passed  no  building  west  of 
the  State  House  exceeded  or  equaled  the  prescribed  limit  of  70  feet 
in  height.  The  Hotel  Otis,  at  the  northeast  corner  of  Joy  and  Mount 
Vernon  Streets,  which  was  the  highest  building  in  the  restricted 
area,  had  a  height  of  68  feet,  exclusive  of  such  projections  as  chim- 
neys, etc.,  which  were  allowed  under  the  statutes.  There  were 
several  buildings,  however,  west  of  Joy  Street,  immediately  opposite 
the  restricted  area,  that  exceeded  70  feet  in  height.  The  limitation 
east  of  the  State  House  seems  to  have  been  set  at  100  feet  because 
it  contained  several  buildings  exceeding  70  feet  in  height. 

Damages 

The  statutes  limiting  the  height  of  buildings  under  the  power  of 
eminent  domain  have  generally  provided  that  a  claim  for  damages 
has  to  be  filed  within  a  stipulated  period.  The  courts  have  decided 
that  it  is  within  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  decree  a  limited 
period  during  which  damages  will  be  awarded  for  any  injury  suf- 
fered by  private  property  owing  to  these  restrictions  and  that  a 
landowner's  claim  for  damages  is  lost  if  he  fails  to  take  advantage 


146 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


of  his  right  to  compensation  during  this  period  (Raymond  v. 
Commonwealth,  192  Mass.  486). 

The  statutes  have  also  generally  provided  that  damages  are  to 
be  awarded  in  the  same  manner  as  prescribed  by  law  for  obtaining 
damages  sustained  by  any  person  whose  land  is  taken  on  the  laying 
out  of  a  highway.  In  other  words,  the  damages  to  be  awarded  are 
the  value  of  the  property  taken  and  of  the  resulting  damages,  if 
any,  to  the  property  not  taken,  less  the  amount  of  the  special  and 
peculiar  benefit,  if  any,  to  the  property  not  taken.  If  the  special 
benefit  equals  or  exceeds  the  amount  of  damages  ascertained  under 
this  rule,  the  landowner  is  not  entitled  to  any  damages. 

The  Copley  Square  act  (stat.  1898,  ch.  452)  is  the  only  instance 
where  the  legislature  provided  compensation  for  the  damages  or 
loss  sustained  by  the  prevented  use  of  materials  bought  or  con- 
tracted for  in  the  case  of  a  building  in  the  process  of  construction 
at  the  time  the  act  was  passed.  The  compensation  that  might  be 
recovered  was  limited  by  the  extent  that  the  material  bought  or 
contracted  for  exceeded  that  which  would  have  been  necessary  for 
a  building  not  exceeding  the  height  limit,  less  the  value  of  such 
material  not  required  on  account  of  the  limitation,  and  the  actual 
cost  or  expense  of  any  rearrangement  of  design  or  construction 
made  necessary  by  the  limitation.  The  amount  recoverable  under 
damages  to  real  estate  and  under  damages  to  material  was  each 
exclusive  of  anything  that  could  be  recovered  under  the  other. 
Thus  the  court  held  in  Williams  v.  Boston,  190  Mass.  541,  that  the 
extra  foundations  and  the  extra  iron  for  a  building  120  feet  high 
not  needed  for  a  building  90  feet  high,  if  incorporated  in  the  building 
before  the  passage  of  the  act,  were  an  element  of  damages  suffered 
by  the  real  estate.  In  determining  the  difference  in  the  value  of  the 
building  as  it  was  before  and  after  the  passage  of  the  act,  the  loss 
on  these  materials,  having  become  a  part  of  the  real  estate,  was  not 
recoverable  as  damages  suffered  by  material.  The  amount  of  com- 
pensation due,  under  the  title  of  damages  to  real  estate,  was,  there- 
fore, the  difference  between  the  combined  value  of  the  unfinished 
structure  and  the  land  before  and  after  the  passage  of  the  act. 

In  the  case  of  Cole  v.  City  of  Boston,  181  Mass.  374,  the  court 
admitted  testimony  showing  the  price  at  which  adjoining  land  had 
recently  sold,  but  refused  testimony  stating  that  the  price  of  such 
adjoining  land  had  been  adversely  affected  by  the  limitation  of  the 
bright  of  buildings.  The  court  held  that  such  evidence  might  prop- 
erly be  excluded ;  for  although  the  price  of  the  adjoining  land  was 
competent,  an  inquiry  into  the  considerations  determining  that  price 
would  open  a  collateral  investigation. 

The  limitation  imposed  on  the  height  of  buildings  in  the  vicinity 
of  the  State  House  was  part  of  a  general  improvement  which  in- 
volved the  laying  out  and  grading  of  certain  streets,  the  removal 
of  buildings,  the  reconstruction  and  extension  of  the  State  House 
and  the  construction  of  a  park  between  Bowdoin  Street  and  the 


RESTRICTIONS  IN  BOSTON 


147 


State  House.  The  original  act  restricting  the  height  in  this  area 
(stat.  1899,  ch.  457;  stat.  1901,  ch.  525)  was  amended  by  an  act 
passed  in  1902  so  far  as  its  provision  for  damages  was  concerned. 
This  act  (ch.  543)  provided  that  only  such  persons  whose  property 
was  damaged  more  than  it  was  benefited  by  the  improvement  as  a 
whole  were  to  receive  any  compensation.  The  constitutionality  of 
this  act  has  never  come  squarely  before  the  courts.  In  the  case  of 
the  American  Unitarian  Association  v.  Commonwealth,  193  Mass. 
470,  the  supreme  court  of  Massachusetts,  however,  intimated  that 
the  constitutionality  of  limiting  the  compensation  for  a  right  of 
property  taken  to  its  value  diminished  by  the  value  of  the  benefit 
received  by  the  remaining  estate  from  a  general  improvement  to 
be  a  very  grave  question. 

In  only  three  instances  has  it  been  possible  to  ascertain  the 
amount  of  damages  recovered  by  the  owners  of  property  injuriously 
afTected  by  these  limitations.  The  owners  of  Westminster  Chambers 
received  $334,589;  the  owners  of  The  Bristol  $15,000;  and  the 
owners  of  a  parcel  on  Dartmouth  Street,  $17,000. 

Exemptions  from  Height  Limit 

The  provisions  affecting  the  projections  above  the  roof  line  that 
were  exempted  from  any  height  limit  and  which  could  therefore  be 
erected  to  any  height  were  in  a  most  confused  state  before  the  act 
of  1905  was  passed.  Numerous  acts  had  been  passed  by  the  legis- 
lature limiting  the  height  of  buildings.  Each  of  these  exempted 
different  projections  above  the  height  limit  than  those  exempted 
by  the  others.  It  was  therefore  very  difficult  to  say  just  what  pro- 
jections might  and  what  projections  might  not  be  erected  above  the 
height  limit.  The  act  of  1905  superseded  all  these  conflicting  pro- 
visions. It  allows  the  following  exemptions :  churches,  steeples, 
towers,  domes,  cupolas,  belfries,  or  statuary  not  used  for  purposes 
of  habitation,  chimneys,  gas  holders,  coal  or  grain  elevators,  open 
balustrades,  skylights,  ventilators,  flagstarTs,  railings,  weather  vanes, 
soil  pipes,  steam  exhausts,  signs,  roof  houses  not  exceeding  12  feet 
square  and  12  feet  high,  and  other  similar  constructions  usually 
erected  above  the  roof  line  of  buildings. 

Statistics  of  Building  Operations,  1899-1910 

The  statistics  of  the  building  operations  in  Boston  during  the 
period  from  1899  to  19 10  are  of  such  a  character  that,  taken  alone, 
they  do  not  justify  any  conclusions  as  to  the  effect  of  these  restric- 
tions upon  the  building  industry.  During  the  five-year  period  of 
1899-1903  immediately  before  the  passage  of  the  acts  of  1904  and 
1905  the  value  of  the  building  operations  totaled  $78,631,451  ;  in 
the  five-year  period  of  1906-1910  after  their-  passage  the  value  of 
the  building  operations  totaled  $81,162,691.  The  value  of  the  build- 
ing operations  in  the  five-year  period  after  the  passage  of  the  acts 


148 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


consequently  exceeded  those  of  the  five-year  period  before  the 
passage  of  the  acts  by  only  $2,531,240.  The  acts  are  probably 
responsible  for  this  small  increase.  The  effect  of  the  panicky  con- 
ditions in  1 907-1 908  must,  however,  not  be  forgotten.  Had  it  not 
been  for  this  financial  crisis,  the  building  operations  might  have  been 
considerably  larger  during  the  latter  period. 

Estimated  Cost  of  Completed  Buildings — 1899-1910 

Year  Brick  Wood      Alterations  Total 

i9!0   $10,950,390  $5,116,975  $4,808,306  $20,875,671 

1909   7,285,550  6,148,395  3,322,486  16,756,431 

1908   5,292,300  3,259,075  2,701,287  11,252,662 

1907   10,607,367  4,464,052  4,151,807  19,223,226 

1906   14,255,431  5,845,191  2,954,097  23,054,701 

1905   7,5io,325  1,349,695  3,504,727  12,364,747 

1904   15,653,341  3,128,726  3,246,000  22,028,067 

1903   9,!99,7oo  2,531,922  3,533,318  15,264,940 

1902   7,046,870  3,100,185  3,382,055  13,529,110 

1901   10,844,801  3,064,410  3,95o,5oo  17,859,711 

1900   6,981,430  5,862,695  3,602,075  16,446,200 

1899   5,799,467  4,191,010  5,54i,oi3  15,531,490 


Number  of  Completed  Buildings — 1899-1910 

Altera- 

Year  Brick  Wood      tions  Total 

19^0   385  1,051      2,172  3,608 

1909   390  1,154      2,158  3,702 

1908   166  680       1,785  2,631 

1907   355  865      2,326  3,546 

1906   479  i,i53      1,693  3,325 

1905   156  222      1,871  2,249 

1904   409  696      1,909  3,014 

1903   287  549      2,071  2,907 

T902   235  596      2,307  3,138 

[901   413  610      2,230  3,262 

1900   r>  1 4  1,238     2,238  4,090 

'<V>   317  ooo     2,234  3,541 


Bibliography 
Commission  on  the  Height  of  Buildings: 

1.  Order  of  July  5,  1904;  Boston  City  Documents,  1904,  No. 

91,  6  p. 

2.  Report,  December  3,  1904.   Doc.  No.  109.   18  p. 


RESTRICTIONS  IN  BOSTON 


149 


3.  Order,  July  21,  1905.   Doc.  No.  126.   3  p. 

4.  Order,  November  20,  1905.  Doc.  No.  130.   3  p. 

5.  Final  Report,  December  22,  1905.  Doc.  No.  133.  30  p. 
Myron  E.  Pierce.   History  of  the  Westminster  Case,  February  11, 

1902.   7  p. 

Petitioners  for  repeal  of  Chapter  333  of  the  Act  of  1904.   9  p. 

Samuel  J.  Elder.  Limitation  of  Height  of  Buildings  near  Copley 
Square.  Argument  before  Committee  on  Cities  on  behalf  of 
the  Museum  of  Fine  Arts  and  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Tech- 
nology, February  17,  1898.    16  p. 

fosiah  Henry  Benton,  Jr.  Argument  for  legislation  to  limit  the 
height  of  buildings  on  and  near  Copley  Square  before  Commit- 
tee on  Cities,  February  17,  1898.   38  p. 

Committee  on  Cities,  Schedules  to  accompany  petition  for  legislation 
to  protect  Copley  Square,  1898.    13  p. 

Shall  Governor  Crane's  veto  be  upheld?  Argument  against  West- 
minster Chambers  Bill,  March,  1901. 

Albert  E.  Pillsbury.  The  Truth  about  the  Westminster  Chambers. 
Address  to  the  Committee  on  Cities  for  the  owners  of  the  West- 
minster Chambers,  April  4,  1901. 

Woodbury  &  Leighton.  The  Westminster  Chambers  Bill  circular 
appealing  to  the  Massachusetts  House  of  Representatives  for 
fair  treatment,  1900.    2  p. 

E.  A.  Whitman.  Change  of  Limitation  in  Height  of  buildings  in 
Copley  Square.  Address  before  the  Joint  Committee  on  Cities 
in  opening  the  case  for  the  remonstrants  against  the  bills  for 
the  change  in  the  limitation  in  height  of  buildings  in  Copley 
Square,  1903.    16  p. 

Report  of  the  Commission  on  Building  Laws  (Massachusetts)  Jan. 
1905. 

Cases : 

Raymond  v.  Commonwealth,  192  Massachusetts  486. 

American  Unitarian  Association  v.  Commonwealth,  193  Massa- 
chusetts 470. 

Parker  v.  Commonwealth,  178  Massachusetts  199. 

Attorney-General  v.  Williams,  174  Massachusetts  476;  178 
Massachusetts  330.  Sustained  in  Williams  v.  Parker,  188 
U.  S.  491. 

Welch  v.  Swasey,  193  Massachusetts  364;  79  N.  E.  74s;  214 
U.  S.  91. 

Williams  v.  Boston,  100  Massachusetts  541. 
Cole  v.  Boston,  181  Massachusetts  374. 

Statutes:  Stat.  1892,  C.  419;  Stat.  1894,  C.  443;  Stat.  1891,  C.  355; 
Stat.  1896,  C.  313;  Stat.  1897,  C.  379;  Stat.  1898,  C.  452;  Stat. 
T899,  C.  457;  Stat,  iqoi,  C.  525 ;  Stat.  1902,  C.  543 ;  Stat.  1904, 
C.  333 ;  Stat.  1905.  C.  383 ;  Stat.  1907,  C.  416. 


150  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON 

The  height  of  buildings  has  been  limited  under  act  of  Congress 
in  the  District  of  Columbia  since  1899.  The  regulations,  which  have 
been  amended  from  time  to  time,  are  more  stringent  than  those  of 
any  other  city  in  this  country  with  the  possible  exception  of  Boston. 
The  limitations  in  the  business  section  in  the  District  of  Columbia 
are  a  trifle  more  lenient  than  those  in  Boston,  but  in  the  residence 
section  they  are  more  rigid. 

The  height  of  buildings  is.  defined  as  the  distance  from  the  level 
of  the  sidewalk  opposite  the  middle  of  the  front  of  the  building  to  the 
highest  point  of  the  roof.  If  a  building  has  more  than  one  front, 
the  height  is  measured  from  the  elevation  of  the  sidewalk  opposite 
the  middle  of  the  front  that  will  permit  the  greater  height. 

No  building  may  be  erected  to  a  greater  height  than  the  width 
of  the  street  in  its  front  increased  by  20  feet.  Buildings  that  face 
on  a  public  space  or  reservation  formed  at  the  intersection  of  two 
or  more  streets,  the  course  of  which  is  not  interrupted  by  such  public 
space  or  reservation,  have  their  height  limit  determined  by  the  width 
of  the  widest  street. 

No  building  on  a  business  street  may  exceed  a  maximum  height 
of  130  feet  except  on  the  north  side  of  Pennsylvania  Avenue  between 
First  and  Fifteenth  Streets  NW.,  where  an  extreme  height  of  160 
feet  is  permitted. 

On  residence  streets  buildings  may  not  exceed  80  feet  in  height 
to  the  top  of  the  highest  ceiling  joints  or  85  feet  in  height  at  the 
highest  part  of  the  roof  or  parapet.  The  height  of  the  highest 
part  of  the  roof  or  parapet,  moreover,  may  not  exceed  the  width  of 
the  street  diminished  by  10  feet  on  streets  more  than  70  feet  wide ; 
60  feet  on  streets  between  60  and  70  feet  wide;  and  the  width  of 
the  street  on  streets  less  than  60  feet  wide. 

On  corner  lots  the  height  is  determined  by  the  width  of  the  wider 
street. 

On  streets  less  than  90  feet  wide  where  building  lines  have  been 
established  and  recorded  in  the  office  of  the  surveyor  that  prevent 
the  lawful  erection  of  buildings  in  advance  of  such  line,  the  width 
of  the  street,  in  so  far  as  it  controls  the  height  of  buildings,  is  held 
to  be  the  distance  between  the  building  lines. 

The  Commissioners  are  also  authorized  to  regulate  the  maximum 
height  of  buildings  on  such  blocks  as  are  immediately  adjacent  to 
public  buildings  or  to  the  side  of  any  public  building.  The  height 
of  several  small  areas  has  been  regulated  under  this  provision.  The 
buildings  fronting  or  abutting  on  the  plaza  in  front  of  the  new  Union 
Station  may  not  be  more  than  80  feet  high. 

The  buildings  on  Pennsylvania  Avenue  NW.  confronting  the 
Treasury  Buildine  and  the  State.  War  and  Navy  Building  and  those 
on  14th  Street  SW.,  between  B  and  D  Streets,  confronting  the 
Bureau  of  Printing  and  Engraving,  are  limited  to  a  maximum  height 
of  80  feet.    The  buildings  on  G  and  F  Streets  NW.,  between  7th 


DISTRICTING  IN  LOS  ANGELES 


and  9th  Streets,  adjacent  to  the  United  States  Patent  Office,  and 
those  on  North  Capitol  Street  confronting  the  Post  Office  Building, 
are  limited  to  a  maximum  height  of  90  feet.  The  buildings  adjacent 
to  the  Treasury  Building,  on  15th  Street  N\V.,  between  Pennsylvania 
Avenue  and  G  Street,  are  limited  to  a  height  of  95  feet. 

The  Commissioners  of  the  District  are  not  only  authorized  but 
directed  to  denominate  portions  of  streets  as  business  streets.  The 
Commissioners  may  from  time  to  time  denominate  portions  of  streets 
as  business  streets  subject  to  two  conditions: 

1.  Where  in  a  portion  of  a  street  not  already  denominated  a 
business  street  a  majority  of  a  frontage  not  less  than  three  blocks 
in  length  is  occupied  and  used  for  business  purposes ;  and 

2.  Where  a  portion  of  a  street  has  already  been  denominated 
a  business  street  and  there  exists  adjoining  such  portion  a  block  or 
more  the  frontage  of  which  is  occupied  and  used  for  business 
purposes. 

All  the  streets  in  the  District  not  designated  as  business  streets 
are  considered  residence  streets.  The  portions  of  streets  denomi- 
nated business  streets  number  about  seventy  at  present. 

There  is  no  statutory  provision  in  the  District  that  restricts  the 
development  of  business  streets  to  business  purposes,  or  of  residence 
streets  to  residence  purposes.  Every  owner  is  free  to  develop  his 
own  property  whether  it  is  located  on  a  business  street  or  on  a 
residence  street  as  he  sees  fit. 

LOS  ANGELES 

No  city  in  this  country  has  gone  as  far  in  the  way  of  creatmg  in- 
dustrial and  residential  districts  as  Los  Angeles.  Baltimore  regu- 
lates the  location  of  certain  industries.  Minneapolis  has  established 
exclusive  residential  districts  within  a  few  of  which  only  one-family 
residences  may  in  the  future  be  erected.  Los  Angeles  has  not  done 
this.  She  has  no  exclusive  residential  districts.  Certain  industries 
are  permitted  in  all  of  her  residential  district.  But  she  has  done 
what  both  Baltimore  and  Minneapolis  or  any  other  American  city 
has  refrained  from  doing:  she  has  actually  ejected  obnoxious  indus- 
tries from  the  residential  section  and  has  been  sustained  by  the 
courts  in  so  doing. 

The  first  districting  ordinance  in  Los  Angeles  was  passed  in 
1909.  This  ordinance  has  been  amended  more  than  seventy  times. 
This  paper,  to  avoid  any  confusion  on  the  part  of  the  reader,  will 
state  the  general  provisions  of  all  these  ordinances  and  amendments 
as  in  force  to-day  without  any  particular  reference  to  the  several 
ordinances. 

The  entire  citv  of  Los  Ansreles,  with  the  exception  of  two 
suburbs,  is  divided  into  industrial  and  residential  districts.  These 
two  suburbs,  San  Pedro  and  Wilmington,  contain  no  residential  dis- 
trict.   Wilmington,  however,  has  an  industrial  district. 

That  portion  of  Los  Angeles  which  is  districted  is  divided  into 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


twenty-five  industrial  districts  and  one  residential  district.  The  resi- 
dential district  comprises  the  whole  districted  territory  exclusive  of 
the  areas  within  the  several  industrial  districts.  It  therefore 
encircles  and  surrounds  many  of  the  industrial  districts. 

The  so-called  industrial  districts  do  not  fairly  indicate  the  ex- 
tent of  the  industrial  area  of  the  city.  In  addition  to  the  industrial 
districts  there  are  fifty-eight  districts,  known  as  "  residence  excep- 
tions," in  the  residential  district  that  are  exempt  from  the  regula- 
tions applicable  to  the  residential  district  and  in  which  business  is 
permitted  subject  to  certain  conditions. 

The  industrial  districts  vary  considerably  in  shape  and  size.  The 
largest  district  has  an  area  of  several  square  miles.  At  its  greatest 
dimensions,  it  measures  five  miles  in  length  and  two  miles  in  width. 
The  smallest  district  comprises  one  solitary  lot.  The  combined  area 
of  the  several  industrial  districts  aggregates  not  more  than  one-tenth 
that  of  the  residential  district.  The  industrial  districts  are,  on  the 
whole,  pretty  well  grouped  in  one  part  of  the  city. 

The  "  residence  exceptions  "  are  all  small.  The  largest  is  about 
a  half  mile  square.  With  this  exception  no  "  residence  exception  " 
covers  a  greater  area  than  two  city  blocks.  In  most  instances  these 
districts  do  not  occupy  more  than  one  or  two  lots.  The  combined 
area  of  the  fifty-eight  "  residence  exceptions  "  is  probably  not  more 
than  i  per  cent  of  the  residential  district.  The  "  residence  excep- 
tions" are,  however,  scattered  more  widely  throughout  the  residen- 
tial district  than  are  the  industrial  districts. 

In  general  the  distinction  between  the  industrial  districts  and  the 
residential  district  is  this :  all  kinds  of  business  and  manufacturing 
establishments  are  unrestrained  in  most  of  the  industrial  districts 
while  certain  specified  businesses  of  an  obnoxious  character  are  ex- 
cluded from  the  residential  district.  Those  businesses  not  especially 
excluded  are  permitted  in  the  residential  district.  All  but  the  very 
lightest  manufacturing  is  prohibited  in  the  residential  district.  The 
less  offensive  business  and  manufacturing  establishments  excluded 
from  the  residential  district  may  be  carried  on  in  the  "  residence  ex- 
ceptions." The  owners  of  60  per  cent  of  the  neighboring  property 
frontage  must  give  their  consent  to  the  creation  of  any  "  residence 
exception." 

The  industrial  districts 

Industry  is  unrestrained  in  most  of  the  industrial  districts.  There 
are  six  industrial  districts,  however,  that  are  very  much  in  the  na- 
ture of  "  residence  exceptions."  In  districts  12,  13  and  14,  it  is  un- 
lawful to  establish  or  maintain  any  works  or  factorv,  except  a  public 
hand  laundry  or  wash  house,  where  power  other  than  animal  power 
is  used  in  its  operation.  In  district  20.  dye  works,  and  in  district 
22.  hay  barns,  feed,  fuel  and  wood  yards  are  included  in  the  above 
exceptions. 

In  district  19  it  is  unlawful  to  establish,  erect  or  construct  any 


DISTRICTING  IN   LOS  ANGELES 


I  53 


works  or  factory  operated  by  any  other  power  than  animal  power, 
or  any  winery,  blacksmith  shop,  stone  crusher,  rolling  mill,  carpet- 
beating  establishment,  gas  works,  mattress  factory,  soap  factory,  fer- 
tilizer plant  or  factory,  tallow-rendering  establishment,  tannery,  glue 
factory,  public  laundry,  wash  house,  brick  yard  or  lumber  yard. 

After  December  1,  191 5,  it  will  become  unlawful  to  conduct,  op- 
erate or  maintain  or  to  cause  or  permit  to  be  conducted,  operated  or 
maintained  in  this  district  any  blacksmith  shop,  planing  mill,  lumber 
yard,  brick  yard,  hay  barn,  wood  yard,  public  laundry,  wash  house 
stone  crusher,  or  other  works  or  factory  operated  by  power  other 
than  animal  power  except  as  permitted  in  the  residential  district. 
In  other  words,  after  December  1,  1915,  district  19  will  become  part 
of  the  residential  district. 

The  residential  district 

Certain  industries  are  absolutely  prohibited  in  the  residential  dis- 
trict. Such  industries,  if  established  at  the  time  the  legislation  was 
enacted,  have  been  ejected  from  the  district.  The  industries  which 
it  is  unlawful  to  erect,  establish,  maintain  or  carry  on  in  the  residen- 
tial district  are :  any  works  or  factory  using  power  other  than  animal 
power  in  its  operation,  or  any  stone  crusher,  rolling  mill,  machine 
shop,  planing  mill,  carpet-beating  establishment,  hay  barn,  wood 
yard,  lumber  yard,  public  laundry,  wash  house,  coal  yard,  briquette 
yard,  riding  academy,  or  any  winery-  or  place  where  wine  or  brandy 
is  made  or  manufactured.  Blacksmith  shops  already  erected  may 
be  maintained  in  the  residential  district,  but  a  ban  is  placed  on  the 
erection  of  new  ones. 

The  installation  and  maintenance  of  one  electric  motor  of  a  ca- 
pacity not  exceeding  five  horsepower  is  permitted  on  any  lot  or 
premises  within  the  residential  district.  This  motor  may  not,  how- 
ever, be  operated  in  conjunction  with  any  gas  works,  mattress 
facton*.  soap  factory,  fertilizer  plant  or  factory,  tallow-rendering 
establishment,  tanner}-  or  glue  factory. 

The  "  residence  exceptions  " 

A  person  desiring  to  erect,  establish,  maintain  or  carry  on  any 
works  or  factory  using  power  other  than  animal  power  in  its  opera- 
tion, or  any  hay  barn,  wood  yard,  winery,  blacksmith  shop  or  riding 
academy  in  the  residential  district  may  petition  the  council  for  the 
creation  of  a  u  residence  exception." 

The  establishment,  maintenance  or  carrying  on  of  any  stone 
crusher,  rolling  mill,  carpet-beating  establishment,  gas  works,  mat- 
tress factonr,  soap  factor}',  fertilizer  plant  or  factor}',  tallow-render- 
ing- establishment,  tannery,  elue  factory,  public  laundrv.  wash  house, 
planing*  mill,  brick  yard,  lumber  yard,  coal  yard  or  briquette  yard  is 
expressly  prohibited  in  all  residence  exceptions. 

The  petition  for  the  creating  of  a  residence  exception  must 
set  forth  the  name  of  the  person :  the  location  and  the  nature  of  the 


154 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


establishment,  works  or  factory  desired  to  be  erected,  established, 
maintained  or  carried  on;  the  record  description  of  such  property 
with  its  frontage  and  depth ;  the  dimensions  of  each  building  pro- 
posed to  be  erected  or  maintained  and  the  number  of  stories  thereof  , 
and  if  power  is  proposed  to  be  used  in  the  operation  of  such  estab- 
lishment, works  or  factory,  the  amount  and  character  thereof.  Each 
petition  must  be  duly  verified  by  the  person  making  the  application 

The  council,  however,  grants  no  application  for  a  "  residence 
exception  "  unless  it  is  accompanied  by  the  signatures  of  the  owners 
of  60  per  cent  of  the  property  frontage  in  the  immediate  vicinity  giv- 
ing their  consent  to  its  creation.  The  area  of  such  consent  varies 
for  different  sites. 

Where  the  proposed  establishment,  works  or  factory  is  to  be  sit- 
uated on  an  inside  lot  in  any  block,  the  owners  of  60  per  cent  of 
the  property  frontage  in  such  block  on  both  sides  of  the  street  must 
give  their  consent.  The  distance  of  such  consent  must  be  at  least 
equal  to  the  length  of  the  side  of  the  block  where  the  proposed 
establishment,  works  or  factory  is  to  be  situated. 

Where  the  proposed  establishment,  works  or  factory  is  to  be 
situated  on  a  corner  lot,  the  area  of  consent  takes  in  the  property 
frontage  on  both  sides  of  each  street  within  a  400-foot  square  hav- 
ing its  sides  parallel  to  the  intersecting  streets  upon  which  such 
lot  corners,  the  center  of  such  square  being  the  point  of  intersection 
of  the  center  lines  of  such  streets.  Where  such  streets  do  not  bi- 
sect each  other,  the  center  of  such  square  is  the  point  where  the 
center  lines  of  such  intersecting  streets  would  bisect  each  other  if 
prolonged. 

Where  the  proposed  establishment,  works  or  factory  covers  60 
per  cent  or  more  of  any  block,  the  area  of  consent  embraces  the 
property  frontage  on  both  sides  of  each  street  within  a  parallelo- 
gram surrounding  such  block,  the  sides  of  such  parallelogram  being 
150  feet  distant  beyond  the  sides  of  such  block. 

A  description  of  the  property  represented  by  each  of  these  sig- 
natures must  accompany  this  petition.  This  description  must  in- 
clude the  number  of  the  lot,  block,  and  the  name  of  the  tract  wherein 
such  lot  ir  situated  and  the  proper  reference  to  the  book  and  page 
of  the  recorded  map  showing  such  lot  and  tract. 

The  council  refers  all  petitions  to  the  board  of  fire  commissioners 
for  investigation  and  report.  If  the  fire  commissioners  find  the 
signatures  adequate,  and  upon  investigation  recommend  the  granting 
of  the  petition,  the  council  mav  adopt  an  ordinance  excepting  the 
territory  from  the  residential  district. 


APPENDIX  V 


THE  ENGLISH  AND  SWEDISH  TOWN  PLANNING 

ACTS 
By  Herbert  S.  Swan 
THE  ENGLISH  TOWN  PLANNING  ACT  OF  1909 1 

The  English  Town  Planning  Act  of  1909  provides  for  a  limited 
administrative  control  over  the  development  and  use  of  land  in 
suburban  areas.    The  act  applies  to  England,  Scotland  and  Wales. 

The  act  makes  no  provision  for  the  remodeling  of  a  town  as  a 
whole.  A  city  in  inaugurating  a  town-planning  scheme  is  as  a  rule 
limited  to  land  in  the  course  of  development  and  to  land  likely  to 
be  used  for  building  purposes.  A  scheme  may  include  pieces  of 
land  already  built  upon  or  which  are  not  likely  to  be  used  for  build- 
ing purposes  provided  their  situation  with  respect  to  the  land  likely 
to  be  used  for  building  purposes  makes  their  inclusion  desirable. 

Land  likely  to  be  used  for  building  purposes  includes  any  land 
likely  to  be  used  for  open  spaces,  roads,  streets,  parks  and  pleasure 
or  recreation  grounds. 

Any  land  likely  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  executing  any 
work  upon  or  under  the  land  incidental  to  a  town-planning  scheme 
may  also  be  included.  This  work  does  not  necessarily  have  to  be 
of  a  building  character. 

The  object  of  a  town  plan  is  to  secure  "  proper  sanitary  condi- 
tions, amenity  and  convenience  in  connection  with  the  laying  out 
and  use  of  the  land  and  of  any  neighboring  lands."  The  extent  to 
which  these  objects  may  be  dealt  with  is  to  be  defined  in  a  set  of 
general  provisions  issued  by  the  local  government  board  in  accord- 
ance with  a  schedule  set  forth  in  the  act.  This  schedule  mentions 
streets  (including  the  stopping  up  and  diversion  of  existing  high- 
ways) ;  buildings  ;  open  spaces  (private  and  public)  ;  the  preserva- 
tion of  objects  of  historical  interest  or  natural  beauty;  sewerage, 
drainage,  and  sewage  disposal ;  lighting ;  water  supply ;  obstructive 
buildings,  and  any  consequential  works  to  the  foregoing,  as  being 
within  the  scope  of  a  town  plan. 

The  local  government  board  is  to  interpret  what  is  meant  by  the 
three  expressions ;  "  proper  sanitary  conditions,"  "  amenity,"  and 
"  convenience." 

References:  E.  G.  Bentley  and  S.  Pointon  Taylor,  A  Practical  Guide 
in  the  Preparation  of  Town  Planning  Schemes  (191 1).  J.  B.  Haldane,  The 
Social  Workers'  Guide  (1911).  P-  4I/-420-  Horace  Cubitt,  The  London  Build- 
ing Law  and  the  Development  of  Property.  The  Architect  and  Contract 
Reporter,  Jan.  24,  1913.  Transactions,  Town  Planning  Conference,  London, 
1910.  W.  Thompson,  Handbook  to  the  Housing  and  Town  Planning  Act, 
1009.  Robert  Donald,  The  Municipal  Year  Book  of  the  United  Kingdom  for 
1910,  p.  590-597-   Housing,  Town  Planning,  etc.,  Act  1909,  9  Edw.  VII,  ch.  44. 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Mr.  Thompson  explains  the  general  meaning  of  these  terms: 

M  Sunlight,  fresh  air,  and  vegetation  are  now  recognized  as  the  basis  of 
all  sound  sanitary  conditions. 

"  'Amenity '  or  pleasantness  is  a  very  elastic  term,  but  may  reasonably  be 
held  to  cover  the  preservation,  where  at  all  practicable,  of  trees,  hedges  and 
other  natural  features  which  add  to  the  beauty  of  the  surroundings,  by  effect- 
ing deviations  in  the  street  lines,  or  judicious  arrangement  of  gardens  and 
other  open  spaces,  while  it  may  also  include  the  protection  of  residential  dis- 
tricts as  far  as  possible  from  the  smoke,  noise,  ugliness  and  other  objection- 
able accompaniments  of  certain  manufactures  and  other  undertakings.  It  it 
of  course  necessary  to  protect  the  owner  of  one  estate  from  another  owner 
who  for  purposes  of  profit  might  desire  to  utilize  his  land  in  such  a  way  as 
to  lessen  the  amenities  of  residence,  or  unreasonably  disfigure  the  district  or 
spoil  the  view. 

"  1  Convenience '  mainly  has  regard  to  the  streets  and  other  means  of  com- 
munication between  one  part  of  a  district  and  another,  and  would  justify  the 
local  authority  in  varying  their  width,  direction  or  construction,  where  so 
required,  to  meet  the  needs  of  pedestrian  and  vehicular  traffic  to  and  from 
adjacent  estates  and  surrounding  districts,  as  well  as  to  suit  the  requirements 
of  the  residents."1 

Authorities  quite  generally  agree  that  the  most  important  pro- 
vision in  the  act  is  that  which  empowers  a  city  to  limit  the  number 
of  buildings  that  may  be  erected  per  acre.  This  power  over  build- 
ings extends  not  only  to  restricting  the  use  of  particular  areas  to 
specified  purposes,  but  also  to  regulating  the  height  and  character 
of  the  buildings  as  well  as  fixing  the  minimum  open  space  that  must 
be  left  about  the  buildings  in  the  several  areas. 

Property  is  not  deemed  to  be  injuriously  affected  by  reason  of 
the  making  of  any  provisions  inserted  in  a  scheme,  which,  with  a 
view  to  securing  the  amenity  of  the  area,  or  any  part  of  the  area, 
prescribe  the  space  about  buildings  or  limit  the  number  of  buildings 
to  be  erected,  or  prescribe  the  height  or  character  of  buildings.  The 
local  government  board  must,  however,  consider  these  provisions 
reasonable. 

The  local  government  board  has  to  be  consulted  at  nearly  every 
stage  of  the  preparation  of  a  town-planning  scheme. 

A  town-planning  scheme  prepared  or  adopted  by  a  locality  does 
not  take  effect  unless  approved  by  the  local  government  board, 
which  must  be  satisfied  that  there  is  a  prima  facie  case  for  such 
scheme. 

The  local  government  board  has  power  to  compel  a  local  author- 
ity to  adopt  any  scheme  proposed  by  the  owners  of  land.  The  board 
may  also,  on  satisfactory  representation,  order  a  local  authority  to 
prepare  and  carry  out  a  scheme  subject  to  its  supervision  and  direc- 
tion. The  board  in  granting  its  approval  to  a  scheme  may  impose 
such  modifications  and  conditions  as  it  sees  fit.  Schemes  approved 
by  the  local  government  board  unless  opposed  have  the  effect  of  a 
statute  passed  by  Parliament.  If  a  single  owner,  however,  or  any 
other  person  or  authority  interested  opposes  a  scheme,  it  may  be 
rejected  by  a  resolution  of  either  House  in  Parliament.  Every 


1  Handbook  to  the  Housing  and  Town  Planning  Act.  1909,  p.  28. 


TOWN   PLANNING  ACTS 


157 


town-planning  scheme  may  include  a  provision  suspending,  so  far 
as  necessary  for  the  proper  carrying  out  of  the  scheme,  any  statutory 
enactments,  by-laws,  regulations  or  any  other  provisions  in  opera- 
tion in  the  area  included  in  the  scheme.  This  clause  to  a  large 
extent  transfers  the  control  over  building  operations  from  local  to 
central  control. 

A  city  may  purchase  any  or  all  land  included  in  a  scheme  either 
through  voluntary  agreement  with  the  owners  or  compulsorily — 
that  is,  by  expropriation.  In  case  a  city  does  not  purchase  the  land 
included  in  a  scheme,  it  may  claim  one-half  the  increased  value 
accruing  to  any  property  because  of  the  scheme.  The  valuations 
now  being  fixed  by  the  Finance  Act  of  1909-1910  will  be  of  immense 
importance  to  a  city  in  intercepting  this  increment. 

By  March  31,  1913,  the  local  government  board  had  already 
authorized  the  preparation  or  adoption  of  33  schemes  by  27  different 
local  authorities,  embracing  a  total  area  of  more  than  50,000  acres. 
Mr.  John  Burns,  president  of  the  board,  estimates  that  500,000 
acres  of  rural  land  is  urbanized  every  fifteen  years  in  Great  Britain 

THE   SWEDISH  TOWN    PLANNING  ACT* 

The  first  national  town-planning  act  enacted  by  any  country  was 
that  passed  by  Sweden  in  1874.  Although  the  attention  of  this  act 
witji  its  amendments,  including  those  of  1907  and  1910,  is  primarily 
directed  to  the  development  of  new  areas,  it  also  enjoins  every  town 
to  effect  improvements  in  the  plotting  of  its  built-up  area  at  every 
possible  opportunity.  Town  plans  may  also  be  instituted  in  the 
case  of  burned  areas. 

The  act  makes  the  adoption  of  a  town  plan  obligatory  upon  even- 
town  in  the  kingdom.  About  600  plans  have  been  made  in  accord- 
ance with  the  act. 

The  worst  fault  of  the  original  act  was  that  it  favored  the  rec- 
tangular street  and  block  system.  In  some  instances,  the  gridiron 
plan  was  even  forced  on  the  old  irregular  inner  parts  of  cities, 
thereby  destroying  many  a  picturesque  street.  The  later  amend- 
ments to  the  act  have  fortunately  remedied  this  defect. 

The  law  lays  down  the  technical  regulations  for  the  building  and 
planning  of  towns  with  reference  to  such  requirements  as  traffic, 
health,  comfort,  beauty  of  arrangement  and  protection  from  fire. 

The  city  council  has  the  right  to  make  a  town-planning  scheme 
for  an  area  on  its  own  initiative.  It  may  initiate  a  plan  without  any 
demand  on  the  part  of  the  land  owners.  Land  owners,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  have  no  power  to  plan  their  own  areas.  They  must  re- 
quest the  town  council  to  do  this  for  them.   A  town-planning  scheme 

*  References :  Byggnadsstadga  for  rikets  stader  den  8  maj  1874,  med 
andringar  den  18  april  1884.  den  30  nov.  1888.  den  20  juni  1890,  den  26  maj 
1899;  Stadsplan  och  tomtindeling,  lag  den  31  augusti  1907;  Kommunal  For- 
fattningshandbok  for  Stockholm  1910.  p.  209,  246;  Img.  Lilienberg,  Town 
Planning  and  Legislation  in  Sweden  during  the  Last  Fifty  Years.  Transac- 
tions, Town  Planning  Conference,  London,  1910,  p.  702-10. 


i5« 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


adopted  by  the  council  must,  with  minor  exceptions,  have  the  ap- 
proval of  the  king  before  becoming  effective. 

A  town  may  exercise  the  power  of  eminent  domain  to  purchase 
all  or  any  of  the  land  included  in  a  scheme.  This  power  prevents 
an  owner  from  withholding  his  land  from  development  to  the  det- 
riment of  the  city.  A  town  may  also  expropriate  land  in  an  un- 
sanitary or  overcrowded  area. 

Ample  provision  must  be  made  for  the  convenience  of  traffic. 
The  streets,  which  are  to  be  wide,  shall  run  in  the  directions  most 
suited  for  traffic.  W  ide  promenades  and  boulevards  shall,  if  pos- 
sible, traverse  the  town  in  various  places  and  in  different  directions. 
Shrubbery  is  to  be  planted  in  the  middle  and  on  either  side  of  these 
boulevards  unless  some  other  suitable  arrangement  is  made  for  their 
ornamentation. 

That  the  light,  air  and  ventilation  essential  to  the  public  health 
may  be  obtained,  the  law  insists  on  the  provision  of  as  many  open 
spaces  as  possible.  This  favors  the  creation  of  small  residential 
districts  and  prevents  the  overcrowding  of  houses.  It  also  reduces 
the  fire  hazard. 

The  building  sites  shall  be  of  sufficient  size  to  allow  the  erection 
of  commodious  dwellings  and  the  provision  of  open  and  well-venti- 
lated yards.  All  buildings  must  be  adapted  to  the  lots  on  which  they 
are  erected  and  their  arrangement  must  be  such  as  not  to  militate 
against  the  public  health.  No  dwelling  may  be  erected  in  an  un- 
healthy location.  Both  the  location  and  the  arrangement  of  build- 
ings are  to  be  determined  with  reference  to  variety,  good  taste  and 
beauty  as  well  as  to  economy  in  construction  and  to  a  reduction  of 
the  fire  hazard. 

The  zeal  of  the  act  to  create  a  pleasing  effect  to  the  eye  is  illus- 
trated by  the  provision  that  prohibits  buildings  from  being  painted 
with  unmixed  white  paint — the  paint  must  be  tinted  in  such  a  man- 
ner that  the  reflection  will  not  be  harmful  or  disagreeable  to  the  eye. 

The  town  plan  regulates  the  height  of  buildings  in  the  district, 
but  the  height  of  no  building  may  exceed  the  width  of  the  street 
by  more  than  4  feet  and  11  inches.  A  building  erected  on  a  plot 
situated  at  the  intersection  of  a  wider  and  a  smaller  street  may  base 
its  height  on  the  width  of  the  wider  street  to  a  depth  not  exceeding 
98  feet  5  inches.  No  dwelling-house  may  exceed  five  stories  in 
height,  including  the  ground  floor.  The  garret  is  counted  as  a  story 
provided  it  possesses  a  fireplace. 

Industrial  establishments  may  be  prohibited  in  residential  districts 
and  vice  versa.  The  maximum  number  of  families  which  a  house 
may  accomodate  may  also  be  regulated. 

In  order  to  obviate  any  maladjustments  that  will  have  to  be  rem- 
edied in  the  future,  the  building  department  in  granting  a  building 
permit  has  to  determine: 

1.  The  position  of  the  building  line; 

2.  The  advisability  of  rearranging  the  lot's  boundaries; 


TOWN  PLANNING  ACTS 


159 


3.  The  street  grades; 

4.  The  height  of  the  foundation  with  reference  to  the  street 
grades;  and 

5.  The  lot  level  desirable  to  secure  good  drainage. 

The  plotting  of  a  district  shall  be  treated  as  a  comprehensive 
scheme.  It  shall  as  far  as  possible  be  laid  out  at  one  time.  Each 
district  is  to  be  developed  in  harmony  with  those  surrounding  it. 

The  building  department  has  charge  of  the  plotting.  It  de- 
termines the  size  of  the  proposed  lots.  The  decision  of  the  local 
authority  in  this  matter  is  to  be  submitted  to  the  king,  who  either 
approves  the  plan  without  any  amendment  or  else  rejects  it  in  whole. 

In  the  plotting  of  an  area  great  care  has  to  be  taken  that  the 
lots  laid  out  will  be  of  such  shape,  size  and  general  arrangement  that 
they  may  be  readily  developed  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
the  act  and  the  local  building  ordinances.  The  lot  lines  shall  as  far 
as  possible  be  straight  and  form  right  angles  not  only  with  the 
street  but  also  with  the  adjoining  lot  lines  unless  the  plan  established 
for  the  city  demands  otherwise.  The  integrity  of  the  lot  divisions 
must  be  preserved.  No  building  may  be  erected  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  overlap  the  boundaries,  or  the  proposed  boundaries,  of  two  or 
more  lots.  A  lot  which  has  once  had  its  boundaries  determined  may 
not  be  subdivided  into  smaller  lots  or  in  any  way  diminished  in  area 
except  under  exceptional  circumstances.  A  similar  prohibition  ap- 
plies to  the  consolidation  of  lots  or  parts  of  lots. 

It  may  happen  in  the  plotting  of  an  area  that  the  land  included 
within  the  boundaries  of  one  lot  is  owned  by  two  or  more  persons. 
Where  this  occurs  the  lot  may  not  be  built  upon  until  its  ownership 
is  merged  in  one  person.  The  city,  if  it  so  chooses,  may  itself  pur- 
chase and  consolidate  the  several  parts,  and  under  certain  conditions 
the  owners  may  demand  that  it  purchase  them. 

A  city  may  prohibit  all  building  operations  within  the  area  in- 
cluded in  a  scheme  until  the  plans  for  its  laying  out  are  completed. 
The  period  of  such  suspension,  however,  may  not  exceed  six  months. 
Should  the  extension  of  a  town  into  a  district  which  is  not  included 
in  the  town  plan  become  necessary  or  desirable,  then  a  plan  must 
forthwith  be  made  for  such  district.  No  building  may  be  erected 
that  contravenes  the  town  plan. 

Lines  of  back  gardens  shall,  where  possible,  be  arranged  in  the 
residential  districts  of  the  town.  Lines  of  front  gardens  shall  also 
be  laid  out  where  this  is  found  desirable  and  possible.  Under  no 
circumstances  may  either  the  back  or  the  front  gardens  be  built  over 
or  used  for  any  other  purpose  than  that  of  gardens.  Owners  are 
especially  enjoined  to  maintain  these  gardens  in  a  neat  and  pains- 
taking manner. 

An  area  equivalent  to  at  least  half  that  covered  by  the  building 
must  be  devoted  to  garden  purposes.  In  case  of  corner  lots  situated 
in  those  parts  of  the  city  where  only  houses  of  stone  may  be  erected, 
the  building  department  may,  if  the  proper  development  of  the  lot 


l6o  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

so  requires,  relax  this  provision.  The  area  of  the  garden  in  such 
cases  must,  however,  be  equal  to  at  least  one-third  of  that  occupied 
by  the  building.  The  garden,  moreover,  must  have  a  minimum  area 
of  1936.8  square  feet.  The  principal  part  of  this  open  space  must 
have  a  minimum  width  of  at  least  39.36  feet,  and  the  minor  parts 
a  minimum  width  of  at  least  18.76  feet.  No  building  may  be 
erected  nearer  than  18.76  feet  to  the  lot  line. 

An  exception  to  these  regulations  is  allowed  where  lots  are  de- 
veloped in  such  a  manner  that  the  principal  parts  of  their  respective 
gardens  lie  side  by  side  and  form  one  continuous  stretch.  In  such 
cases  the  local  building  ordinances  may  allow  the  gardens  a  mini- 
mum area  of  1452.6  square  feet,  and  a  minimum  width  for  their 
principal  part  of  37.52  feet. 

Where  the  windows  of  a  living-room  are  to  overlook  an  adjoin- 
ing lot,  a  space  of  39.36  feet  in  width  must  be  left  between  that 
part  of  the  house  and  such  adjoining  lot.  Each  of  the  two  owners 
may,  however,  agree  to  contribute  a  proportionate  part  of  this  space. 

The  stringency  of  the  provisions  with  reference  to  open  space 
does  not  apply  in  the  case  of  "  every-man-his-own-home  99  districts, 
such  as  Enskede  near  Stockholm. 


APPENDIX  VI 


HEIGHT  OF  BUILDINGS  IN  MANHATTAN 

There  are  92,749  buildings  in  Manhattan.  The  average  build- 
ing height  in  Manhattan  is  4.8  stories.  Nine-tenths  of  these  build- 
ings do  not  exceed  a  height  of  6  stories.  The  buildings  over  10 
stories  in  height  constitute  only  a  little  over  1  per  cent  of  the 
total.  There  are  but  1048  buildings  over  10  stories  in  height;  90 
buildings  over  17  stories  in  height;  51  buildings  over  20  stories 
in  height ;  and  only  9  buildings  over  30  stories  in  height.1 

Manhattan  has  an  area  of  14,038  acres.  The  buildings  over  10 
stories  high  constitute  1.11  per  cent  of  the  total  buildings.  Allow- 
ing an  average  ground  area  of  10,000  square  feet  per  building, 
these  buildings  cover  an  area  of  240.58  acres.  This  is  1.71  per  cent 
of  the  area  of  the  borough. 

The  buildings  over  17  stories  high  form  0.09  of  1  per  cent  of 
the  total  buildings.  Allowing  an  average  ground  area  of  15,000 
square  feet  per  building,  these  buildings  cover  an  area  of  31.33 
acres.    This  is  0.22  of  1  per  cent  of  the  total  area  of  the  borough. 

Even  on  Broadway,  below  Chambers  Street,  more  than  one- 
third  of  the  frontage  developed  with  private  buildings  has  a  height 
of  not  exceeding  6  stories.  Only  one-sixth  of  the  frontage  is 
developed  with  buildings  exceeding  20  stories  in  height. 

The  average  building  height,  excluding  public  buildings  and 
churches,  on  Broadway,  below  Chambers  Street,  is  11  stories;  on 
Nassau  Street,  from  Wall  to  Frankfort,  8.56  stories ;  on  Trinity 
Place  and  Church  Street,  from  Morris  to  Chambers,  7.8  stories ;  on 
New  Street  11.59  stories;  on  Exchange  Place  14.1  stories;  and 
on  Fifth  Avenue,  from  Washington  Square  to  59th  Street,  6.4 
stories. 

The  average  frontage  height,  excluding  public  buildings  and 
churches,  on  Broadway,  below  Chambers  Street,  is  13.92  stories; 
on  Nassau  Street,  from  Wall  to  Frankfort,  9.21  stories;  on  Trinity 
Place  and  Church  Street,  from  Morris  to  Chambers,  9.18  stories; 
on  New  Street,  12.24  stories;  on  Exchange  Place  14.9  stories;  and 
on  Fifth  Avenue,  from  Washington  Square  to  59th  Street,  7.5 
stories. 

The  height  of  buildings  in  the  district  below  Chambers  Street, 
considered  as  a  whole,  is  considerably  lower  than  that  on  the  above- 
mentioned  streets.  The  higti  buildings  below  Chambers  Street  are 
practically  all  grouped  within  the  area  bounded  on  the  east  by 
Pearl  and  Whitehall  Streets  and  on  the  west  by  State,  Greenwich 
and  West  Broadway.  The  average  building  height  in  this  district, 
the  area  of  which  is  a  little  more  than  half  of  the  whole  territory 
below  Chambers  Street,  is  6.4  stories. 

1  See  Table  I — Height  of  Buildings  in  Manhattan,  at  page  15. 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


The  average  frontage  height,  however,  is  higher  than  6.4  stories, 
as  the  average  ground  area  covered  by  high  buildings  is  very  mate- 
rially larger  than  that  occupied  by  low  ones.  But  even  making 
allowance  for  this  factor  the  average  frontage  height  cannot  be  in 
excess  of  8  stories.  Remembering  that  the  limited  area  under 
consideration  is  only  about  half  of  the  total  area  below  Chambers 
Street  and  also  that  the  buildings  outside  of  this  area  below  Cham- 
bers Street  have  an  average  height  of  less  than  5  stories,  the  average 
frontage  height  of  all  buildings  below  Chambers  Street  is  well 
under  6.5  stories. 

Taking  the  borough  as  a  whole  the  discrepancy  between  the 
average  frontage  height  and  the  average  building  height  is  much 
less  than  that  indicated  by  the  above  streets.  The  really  high  build- 
ings in  the  borough  being  but  a  tithe  of  the  total  buildings,  the 
average  frontage  height  is  reduced  to  approximately  the  same  level 
as  the  average  building  heights.  If  the  agregate  areas  of  the  high 
and  low  buildings  are  not  in  the  same  ratio  as  their  respective  height, 
the  average  frontage  height  might  even  be  lower  than  the  average 
building  height.  The  available  data  all  indicate  this  to  be  the  fact, 
but  their  insufficiency  prevents  our  fixing  the  exact  amount.  Since 
the  buildings  not  exceeding  6  stories  in  height  constitute  nine-tenths 
of  the  total,  the  amount  can  by  no  means  be  inconsiderable.  If  the 
whole  street  frontage  of  the  borough  were  to  be  regarded  as  im- 
proved, the  amount  of  this  reduction  would  have  to  be  very  rad- 
ically increased — 1  out  of  every  12  real  estate  parcels  being  vacant. 
In  view  of  these  facts,  the  average  frontage  height  in  Manhattan, 
considering  the  entire  street  frontage  as  improved,  is  only  a  trifle, 
if  at  all,  in  excess  of  4  stories. 

The  highest  frame  building  in  Manhattan  is  6  stories;  the 
highest  non-fireproof  building  14  stories.  The  great  mass  of  the 
buildings  are  of  non-fireproof  construction.  The  number  of  frame 
buildings  is  more  than  double  the  number  of  fireproof  buildings — 
I  out  of  every  13  buildings  is  a  frame  building;  while  only  1  out 
of  every  29  buildings  is  a  fireproof  building.  There  are  6963  frame 
buildings*:  82,544  buildings  of  ordinary  construction ;  and  3242  fire- 
proof buildings.  The  frame  buildings  are  especially  numerous 
about  the  waterfront.  More  than  two-thirds  of  the  fireproof  build- 
ings are  less  than  10  stories  in  height,  one-third  do  not  exceed  6 
stories  in  height. 

A  classification  of  buildings  according  to  use  reveals  the  fact 
that  hotels,  and  not  office  buildings,  possess  the  greatest  average 
building  height.  Hotels  have  an  average  height  of  8  stories;  de- 
partment stores,  7.8  stories :  and  office  buildings  7  stories.  Factories 
have  an  average  height  of  5.0  stories;  stores  and  dwellings  5.3 
stories :  dwellings  4.8  stories ;  stores  4  stories ;  and  warehouses  3.9 
stories.1 


1  See  Tabic  II— Height  of  Buildings  by  Classes  in  Manhattan,  at  page  16. 


HEIGHT  OF  BUILDINGS  IN  MANHATTAN  1 63 

The  following  tables  show  the  length  of  frontage  in  feet  on 
certain  streets  in  Manhattan  below  Chambers  Street: 

Trinity 
Place 


.Droaa- 
way 

Nassau 

New 

and  Ex- 
Church  change 
Street  Place 

Subject  to  development: 
I.  Built— 

5,344 
190 

3,4io 
198 

1,831 

5,209 
30 

1,666 

5,534 

3,608 

1,831 

5,239 

1,666 

Not  subject  to  development: 

Parks,    Public    Spaces,  Churches 

1,108 
1,598 

147 
772 

50 

711 
1,281 

330 

2,706 

919 

50 

1,992 

330 

Total   

8,240 

4627 

1. 881 

7-231 

1.996 

I.  BROADWAY  UP  TO  CHAMBERS  STREET 


Stories 

Per  cent 

Frontage 

Per  cent  of 

in 

No.  of 

of  total 

length 

total 

height 

buildings 

buildings 

in  feet 

frontage  length 

3  3  3-o6  100  1.87 

4  4  4.08  100  1.87 

5  19  19-39  614  11.49 

6  18  18.37  1,050  19.64 

7  5  5-12  277  5-i8 

8  2  2.04  81  1.57 

9  5  5-io  190  3-56 

10  3  3.06  242  4.54 

11  6  6.13  320  5-99 

12  8  8.15  428  8.00 

14  2  2.04  106  1.98 

15  2  2.04  108  2.03 

16  3  3.06  140  2.63 

17  3  3.06  372  6.06 

18  2  2.04  105  1.96 

19  2  2.04  103  1.93 

20  1  1.02  113  2. 11 

21  3  3.06  22Q  4.28 

22  2  2.04  179  3.35 
26  2  2.04  70  1. 31 
28  I  1.02  I50  2.8l 
32  I  I.02  96  I.79 
36  I  1.02  l68  3.I5 


Total..    98  100.00  5,344  100.00 


Considering  Sineer  Building  11  stories  and  Woolworth  Building  28  stories: 

Average  building  heieht,  10.32  stories. 

Average  frontage  heieht,  12.47  stories. 
Considering  Sineer  Building  ai  stories  and  Woolworth  Building  55  stories: 

Average  building  height,  11.00  stories. 

Average  frontage  height,  13.92  stories. 


164 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

2.  NASSAU  STREET  FROM  WALL  STREET  TO  FRANKFORT  STREET 


Stones 

Per  cent 

Frontage 

Per  cent  of 

in 

1NO.  01 

of  total 

length 

total 

height 

buildings 

buildings 

in  feet 

frontage  length 

1 

1 

1 . 70 

a  .  /y 

TC 

0. 42 

2 

1 

I  .70 

108 

3 

«j 

c .  -jc 
0  •  jj 

10? 

2.86 

4 

9 

16.06 

289 

8.02 

5 

16 

28.  S7 

768 

21 . 29 

6 

6 

10.71 

27% 

7  s8 

8 

J  •  OJ 

"U7 

8  70 

«j  .  /y 

9 

1 

1 . 70 

A   .  /  y 

6l 

1.66 

10 

3 

8.88 

11 

1 

1.79 

93 

2.59 

12 

2 

3-57 

130 

3.6i 

l4 

1 

I  .79 

85 

2.37 

15 

1.79 

76 

2.07 

16 

2 

3-57 

142 

3-94 

19 

2 

3-57 

211 

5.85 

21 

1 

1.79 

98 

2.71 

23 

1 

1.79 

101 

2.83 

30 

1 

1.79 

98 

2.71 

3J 

1 

1.79 

76 

2.07 

1 

1.79 

154 

4.27 

Total. 

.  57 

100.00 

3,608 

100.00 

Average  building  height,  8.56  stories. 
Average  frontage  height,  9.21  stories. 


3.  TRINITY  PLACE  AND  CHURCH  STREET,  FROM  MORRIS  STREET  TO  CHAMBERS  STREET 


Stories 

in 
height 

No.  of 
buildings 

Per  cent 
of  total 
buildings 

Frontage 
length 
in  feet 

Per  cent  of 
total 
frontage  length 

1 

I 

1-37 

128 

2-43 

3 

I 

1-37 

50 

o.95 

4 

5 

6.85 

.  275 

5.26 

5 

44 

60.27 

2,832 

54.36 

6 

6 

8.22 

360 

6.91 

7 

2 

2.74 

76 

i-45 

9 

r 

1-37 

100 

1.92 

10 

1 

1-37 

80 

1  •  53 

12 

1 

1-37 

35 

0.67 

14 

1 

1.37 

2\G 

4. 11 

15 

1 

1  37 

80 

1.53 

18 

1 

1.37 

76 

i-45 

21 

2 

2-74 

142 

2.73 

22 

3 

4.  II 

425 

8.16 

23 

1 

1.37 

136 

2.61 

26 

1 

1-37 

IOO 

1 .92 

32 

1 

1.37 

I04 

2.01 

Total. 

•  73 

100.00 

5.209 

100.00 

Average  building  height,  7.80  stories. 
Average  frontage  height,  9.18  stories 


Base  map  reproduced  by  courtesy  of 
Ohman  Map  Company. 


MAP  XXI— GENERAL  CLASSIFICATION 
OF  BUILDINGS  IN  MANHATTAN. 

Shading  from  light  to  dark  indicates:  (1) 
factories;  (2)  residences;  (3)  business  and 
offices. 


HEIGHT  OF  BUILDINGS  IN  MANHATTAN  165 


4.  NEW  STREET 


Stories 

in 
height 

No  of 
nines 

Per  cent 

ui  LUlai 

nil  1 1  f\  1  n  ore 

T7fr*n  t"0  erf* 

length 
in  feet 

x cr  cent  ui 

total 
frnntQ  rrf»  Ion  rrt" 

4 

4 

14.82 

155 

8.46 

5 

2 

7.41 

99 

5.42 

6 

I 

3-70 

58 

3^9 

7 

2 

7.41 

165 

904 

0 
0 

I 

370 

62 

3.38 

9 

2 

7.41 

211 

n.54 

11 

3 

11. 11 

172 

9.48 

12 

2 

7.41 

10.48 

16 

3 

11. 11 

196 

10.47 

17 

2 

7.41 

175 

9.63 

19 

I 

3.70 

41 

2.24 

20 

2 

7.41 

8.36 

21 

I 

3-70 

in 

3.19 

22 

I 

3.70 

93 

5-12 

Total. .  27 

100.00 

1,831 

100.00 

Average  building  height,  11.59  stories. 
Average  frontage  height,  12.24  stories. 


5.  EXCHANGE  PLACE 


Stories 

in 
height 

No.  of 
buildings 

Per  cent 
of  total 
buildings 

Frontage 
length 
in  feet 

Per  cent  of 
total 
frontage  length 

5 

1 

6.25 

25 

1.50 

6 

6.25 

89 

5-34 

8 

1 

6.25 

12.30 

9 

1 

6.25 

1 

5.10 

10 
12 

2 

12.50 
6.25 

l8d 

10.98 
4.08 

13 

1 

6.25 

68 

4.08 

16 

2 

12.50 

221 

1326 

17 

1 

6.25 

68 

4.08 

19 

2 

12.50 

186 

II. IX 

20 

1 

6.25 

236 

14.16 

22 

1 

6.25 

132 

7.92 

25 

1 

6.25 

100 

6.00 

Total. 

.  16 

100.00 

1,666 

99.91 

Average  building  height,  14.10  stories. 
Average  frontage  height,  14.90  stories. 


APPENDIX  VII 


THE   RELATION   OF   HIGH    BUILDINGS    TO  EXTRA 
INSURANCE  PREMIUMS 

No  importance  is  attached  to  the  height  factor  in  the  insurance 
of  non-fireproof  mercantile  buildings  unless  they  contain  at  least 
five  stories.  A  3-cent  rate  on  the  hundred  dollars  attaches  to  a 
5-story  building  because  of  extra  hazardous  height.  Above  that 
height  the  rate  increases  very  rapidly,  each  increase  being  progres- 
sive and  cumulative.  The  rate,  for  instance,  on  a  6-story  building 
is  8  cents,  almost  three  times  that  for  a  5-story  building.  For  a 
7-story  building  it  is  20  cents.  The  highest  non-fireproof  mercan- 
tile building  in  the  city  is  said  to  be  10  stories.  The  rate  for  a 
building  of  this  height  is  65  cents,  about  22  times  that  for  a  5-story 
building. 

In  the  insurance  of  fireproof  mercantile  buildings  the  height  ele- 
ment is  ignored  until  the  ninth  story  is  reached.  The  extra  charge 
for  height  on  a  9-story  building  is  1  cent  per  hundred  dollars.  The 
charge  increases  very  rapidly  from  that  story  upward.  For  a  10- 
story  building  it  is  2  cents;  for  a  15-story  building,  22  cents;  and 
for  a  20-story  building  72  cents. 

A  very  heavy  surtax  is  imposed  on  the  building  in  addition  to 
these  charges  in  the  case  of  those  buildings  where  merchandise  is 
stored  on  or  above  the  seventh  story.  Only  sample  stocks  exempt 
the  building  from  this  charge.  The  less  hazardous  stocks  subject 
it  to  a  half-rate  surtax.  In  case  of  lower  buildings  this  surtax 
is  many  times  larger  than  the  height  charge  proper.  In  a  19-story 
building  the  two  charges  are  about  the  same.  This  stock  surtax  on 
the  building  is  10  cents  for  a  7-story  building;  19  cents  for  a  10- 
story  building;  44  cents  for  a  15-story  building;  and  69  cents  for 
a  20-story  building.  The  onus  of  this  tax  no  doubt  operates  in  a 
very  large  degree  to  keep  the  storing  of  merchandise  below  the 
seventh  story  in  the  case  of  high  buildings. 

Fireproof  office  buildings  8  stories  and  under  are  free  from  any 
height  charge.  Above  that  height  they  are  subject  to  one-fourth  the 
height  charge  of  fireproof  mercantile  buildings.  For  a  9-story 
building  this  charge  is  one-fourth  of  1  cent ;  and  for  a  10-story 
building  one-half  of  1  cent.  The  charge  leaps  very  rapidly  above 
this  point.  For  a  15-story  building  it  is  §J4  cents;  for  a  20-story 
building  18  cents;  for  a  25-story  building  30 cents;  and  for  a  30- 
story  building  43  cents.  A  40-story  building  would  have  a  charge 
of  68  cents  and  a  50-story  building  93  cents. 

No  deductions  have  been  allowed  in  the  above  computations  for 
exclusive  office  occupancy  or  for  coinsurance.  These  deductions 
are  so  considerable  that  the  height  charge  is  reduced  considerably 
below  that  indicated  in  the  above  schedules.    But  even  when  these 


HIGH  BUILDINGS  AND  INSURANCE  PREMIUMS  1 67 

factors  are  taken  into  consideration,  the  height  factor  plays  the  most 
important  role  in  determining  the  insurance  rate  for  a  very  high 
building. 

In  the  Woohvorth  Building,  for  instance,  the  height  charge 
forms  62  per  cent  of  the  final  rate  on  the  unexposed  building  and 
45  per  cent  of  the  final  rate  on  the  exposed  building.  The  present 
unexposed  rate  on  the  Woohvorth  Building  is  27  cents.  If  there 
were  no  height  charge  this  rate  would  be  reduced  to  11  cents.  In 
other  words,  an  annual  tax  of  16  cents  is  imposed  on  account  of 
height  alone.  The  Woohvorth  Building,  being  valued  at  about 
$6,500,000,  would  therefore  pay  about  $10,400  per  year  in  height 
charges  alone,  assuming  the  building  to  be  fully  insured. 

The  height  charge  on  a  tower  like  that  of  the  Woohvorth  Build- 
ing is  much  smaller  than  that  on  a  full  building  of  the  same  height. 
The  height  of  the  tower  is  pro-rated  over  the  base  area  of  the  entire 
building.  The  tower  area  in  the  Woohvorth  Building  is  only  one- 
fourth  that  of  the  whole  building.  This  levels  the  height  of  the 
whole  building  to  34  stories.  If  the  whole  Woohvorth  Building 
were  erected  to  a  height  of  55  stories,  the  height  charges  would  be 
twice  those  actually  imposed. 

The  following  schedule  shows  the  charge  made  on  account  of 
height.  The  charges  for  the  various  kinds  of  buildings  are  not  car- 
ried higher  than  the  heights  found  in  New  York: 


Non-Fireproof  Buildings 


Mer- 
Height  can- 
sto-  tile 
ries  build- 
ings 


Apart- 
ment 
houses 


Hotels 


Mer- 
can- 
tile 
build- 
ings 


Fireproof  Buildings 


Mercan-  Apart- 

tile  ment 

buildings  houses 

with  with 
merchan-  unpro- 

dise  tected 

above  floor 

7th  floor  openings 


Hotels 
with 

unpro- 
tected 
floor 
openings 


Office 
build- 
ings 


4 
5 
6 

7 
8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
U 
15 
16 

17 
18 

19 
20 
21 
22 


$0.03 
.08 
.20 
•  35 
.50 
.65 


.02 
.07 
.  12 

.17 


$0. 10 
.20 
•  30 
.40 


$0.01 
.02 
.03 
.06 
.09 
.  12 
.22 

•  32 
.42 

•  52 
.62 

•  72 
.82 
92 


So 


10 
.  12 
.14 
.19 
.24 

29 

•  34 

•  39 

•  44 
.49 

•  54 
•59 
.64 
.69 

•  74 
•79 


$0.0075 
.015 
.0225 


$0.0025 

$0.01 

.005 

.02 

.0075 

.03 

.015 

.04 

.0225 

•05 

•03 

.06 

.0^5 

.08 

.105 

•  13 

•  155 

.18 

.205 

.23 

HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Non-Fireproof  Buildings  Fireproof  Buildings 


i 

t 

Mercan-  Apart- 

Mer- 

Mer- 

tile ment 

Hotels 

Height  can- 

Apart- 

can- 

buildings houses 

with 

Office 

sto-  tile 

ment  Hotels 

tile 

with  with 

unpro- 

build- 

ries build- 

houses 

build- 

merchan- unpro- 

tected 

ings 

ings 

ings 

dise  tected 
above  floor 

floor 
openings 

7th  floor  openings 


I 
I 
i 


255 

28 

305 

33 

355 

38 

405 

43 

455 

48 

505 

53 

555 

58 

605 

63 

655 

68 

705 

73 

755 

78 

805 

§3 
855 

88 
005 

93 

925 
98 

005 

03 

055 


23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
4i 
42 
43 
44 

46 
47 
43 
49 

SO 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 


APPENDIX  VIII 


TABULATION  OF  VACANCIES  IN  THE  HIGH-BUILDING 

DISTRICT 

As  illustrative  of  the  effect  of  high  buildings  and  dark  offices  on 
rentability,  vacancies  were  tabulated  for  the  high-building  district 
below  Chambers  Street,  east  of  Greenwich  Street,  west  of  Pearl  and 
Gold  Streets  and  north  of  the  Custom  House. 


Net  rentable 

Vacant 

Floor 

floor  area, 

floor  area, 

Per  cent 

sq.  ft. 

_       £  A. 

sq.  ft. 

vacant 

g- 

3I3-44I 

10. 1 

2 

i  152  881 

AT?  1^S8 

■» 

1  TIC  OIO 

■iftT  ft? A 

TZ  8 

A 

1  nic  780 

DO,01  1 

17  T 

r 

4~  1,11S 

if  rv 

& 

t  r /*» T  A/\t 

240,758 

16 . 0 

7   

138,074 

11. 6 

8   

1,086,685 

104.431 

9-6 

9   , 

  QJT2I2 

72,22=; 

7.7 

  850,954 

73,299 

8.6 

  767.458 

54.022 

7-1 

  667.572 

60,407 

9.1 

13   

  538.041 

43608 

8.1 

14   

28,60I 

5-8 

15   

  463,416 

22.230 

4.8 

16   

  371,812 

25,830 

7.0 

17   

  269.675 

19,415 

7.2 

18   

27.537 

10.9 

19   

16,745 

7-9 

13.128 

6.t 

21   

  165.607 

7,884 

4.8 

  121.335 

16,570 

13.7 

23   

  86.855 

1.734 

2.0 

24   

  7I.075 

1,470 

2.1 

*5   

  54,675 

I.258 

2.3 

  I34.6l6 

7,363 

5.5 

25.527.365 

3J9I.038 

12.5 

Net 

rentable  Vacant            Per  cent 

area,  area,  vacant 

sq.  ft.  sq.  ft. 


Above    1st  floor    25.527.365  3.101.6*8  12.5 

Above    5th  floor    10.419.056  976679  9.4 

Above  loth  floor    4.871.4*9  347892  7.1 

Above  i<^h  floor    1,039.312  128,034  6.6 

Above  20'h  floor    634  161  36.279  5.6 

Above  2^th  floor    134,616  7.363  5.4 


170 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Net  Vacant 

rentable  area  area  Percent 

Floors                                (5  floors),  (5  floors),  vacant 

sq.  ft.  sq.  ft. 


1  to   5  inclusive   15,087,319  2,214,359  14.7 

6  to  10  inclusive   5,568.517  628.787  II. 1 

11  to  15  inclusive   2,932,127  208,958  7.1 

16  to  20  inclusive    1,305.239  102,655  7. 1 

21  to  25  inclusive    499-547  28.916  5.8 

26  and  over    134,616  7,363  5.5 


APPENDIX  IX 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED  TO  THE  COMMISSION 


PAGE 

Ackerman,  Frederick  L   172 

Austin,  D   175 

Bangs,  F.  R   175 

Bannister,  William  P   175 

Bernard,  Alfred  D   176 

Bolton,  Reginald  Pelham   181 

Boyd,  David  Knickerbacker   188 

Boynton,  Edward  B   191 

Brainerd,  W.  H   191 

Brentano,  Simon    192 

Brown,  Charles  S   192 

Browning,  William  H   195 

Brunner,  Arnold  W   196 

Bush,  Irving  T   198 

Cabot.  F.  E   199 

Carr,  Samuel    200 

Chambers,  Frank  R   200 

Coolidge,  J.  Randolph,  Jr   201 

Deeves,  Richard    202 

De  Forest,  Robert  W   203 

Devlin,  Edward  1   204 

Dinwiddie.  Miss  Emily  W   205 

Dwight,  Edmund    206 

Eliot,  Amory    209 

Elliman,  Lawrence  B   209 

Everett,  Arthur  G   210 

Ewing,  William    211 

Falconer,  Bruce  M   211 

Flagg,  Ernest    223 

Gernon,  James  L   228 

Greve,  William  M   229 

Guerin,  William    230 

Hardy,  Edward  R   231 

Harmon,  William  E   233 

Hastings,  Thomas    234 


PAGE 

Hoxie,  George  L   235 

Ingersoll,  Raymond  V   236 

Kelsey,  Clarence  H   238 

Kenlon,  John    239 

Killam,  Charles  W   241 

Knopf,  S.  Adolphus   242 

Laidlaw,  Walter    243 

Lindner,  Walter    244 

Litchfield,  Electus  D   245 

Lowinson,  Oscar    249 

Ludlow,  William  0   249 

Marks,  L.  B   251 

Marsh,  Benjamin  C   252 

Matthews,  Nathan    253 

Miller,  Rudolph  P   254 

Murphy,  John  J   255 

Nolen,  John    255 

Olmsted,  Frederick  Law   255 

Pope,  Robert  Anderson   260 

Say  ward,  William  H   263 

Shientag,  Bernard  L   263 

Shurtleff,  Arthur  A   265 

Simon,  Robert  E   265 

Smith,  Henry  Atterbury   266 

Smith,  Howard  C   268 

Stewart,  F.  J   275 

Storer,  John  H   268 

Sturgis,  R.  Clipston   268 

Veiller,  Frank  D   269 

Wead,  Leslie  C   271 

Weeks,  W.  B.  P   272 

Wentworth,  Franklin  H   272 

White,  Alfred  T   273 

Woolson,  Ira  H   275 


172 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Statement  by  Mr.  Frederick  L.  Ackerman,  of  Trowbridge  & 
Ackerman,  Architects,  November  3,  1913 

Districting 

I  believe  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  to  frame  proper  laws 
governing  the  erection  of  buildings  in  a  great  city  without  first  hav- 
ing determined  upon  a  general  plan  for  its  future  development  based 
upon  the  principle  of  segregation  of  activities  or  a  scheme  of  zoning. 

This  does  not  require  us  to  readjust  our  conception  of  the  rights 
and  authority  of  the  city  to  act  in  such  matters,  for  at  the  present 
time  we  exercise  upon  a  small  scale  and  in  an  ineffectual  way  the 
same  authority  as  do  cities  like  Frankfort,  Germany.  We  regulate 
the  height  of  apartment  houses  and  tenements  upon  side  streets; 
we  limit  the  area  of  all  buildings  in  relation  to  the  lot  occupied,  and 
this  percentage  varies  for  buildings  of  different  class.  We  restrict 
the  occupancy  of  factories  and  we  prohibit  offensive  occupations 
within  certain  sections  because  the  same  would  be  detrimental  to  the 
land  values  of  adjacent  properties.  In  order  to  carry  out  an  effective 
scheme  of  zoning,  we  have  but  to  establish  a  standard  wherein  we 
fix  in  a  more  logical  way  the  line  marking  the  division  between  the 
rights  of  the  community  and  the  individual  rights  of  the  property 
owners. 

Assuming  that  we  have  developed  a  general  plan  for  the  future 
development  of  the  city,  our  first  problem  is  that  of  devising  a  set 
of  ordinances  which  will  effect  the  scheme.  We  should  divide  these 
ordinances  into  two  separate  groups,  the  first  dealing  with  the 
already  congested  districts  of  midtown  and  lower  Manhattan,  where 
the  object  to  be  attained  is  that  of  expediency  and  where  the  ordi- 
nances, in  consequence,  must  be  remedial  in  their  nature.  The 
second  group  should  deal  with  the  remaining  areas  of  Greater  New 
York,  and  we  should  so  frame  these  ordinances  that  these  areas 
will  be  conserved  for  a  proper  use.  This  is  the  vital  part  of  our 
problem,  for  it  is  upon  these  undeveloped  areas  that  the  city  must 
draw  in  its  future  development. 

In  both  areas  we  should  prohibit  absolutely  in  all  classes  of 
buildings  the  vicious  practice  of  borrowing  or  stealing  light  and  air 
from  abutting  property  by  placing  windows  in  the  walls  upon  the 
party  line.  This  practice  has  resulted  in  making  values  uncertain 
and  temporary,  and  through  speculative  building  has  been  the  cause 
of  the  demoralization  of  certain  sections  which  should  logically  have 
been  used  for  other  purposes.  In  both  areas,  also,  wc  should  pro- 
hibit the  present  manner  of  using  the  lot  extending  from  street  to 
street.  Our  present  methods  have  seriously  depreciated  the  values 
of  adjacent  property  by  reducing  the  amount  of  light  and  air  within 
the  center  of  the  block. 

Aside  from  the  above  two  suggestions,  little  can  be  done  in  the 
districts  already  congested.  We  should  restrict,  however,  the  occu- 
pancy of  buildings  upon  such  a  street  as  Fifth  Avenue  in  order  to 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


173 


insure  the  proper  use  of  this  street.  We  should  also  limit  the  heights 
of  new  buildings  here  to  approximately  125  feet. 

In  the  great  area  outside  of  the  congested  districts  we  should 
regulate  the  erection  of  buildings  according  to  a  scheme  of  zoning 
wherein  the  laws  governing  each  zone  should  be  related  to  the  use 
and  occupancy  of  that  class  of  buildings  desired  in  a  particular  zone. 
This  is  the  only  way  whereby  permanence  of  values  can  be  main- 
tained and  the  buildings  of  the  city  erected  in  a  permanent  manner. 

In  all  of  these  zones,  we  should  establish  the  height  of  facades 
in  order  to  insure  proper  light  for  the  buildings  and  for  the  streets. 
We  should  fix  upon  the  multiple  representing  the  number  of  times 
that  an  owner  can  repeat  his  original  area  without  injury  to  ad- 
jacent property  through  the  loss  of  light  and  also  to  provide  against 
the  congestion  of  the  streets.  Wre  should  also  conserve  to  a  greater 
degree  the  unoccupied  area  within  the  block  to  insure  to  all  owners 
of  property  a  proper  return  in  rental  for  the  lower  stories  of  their 
buildings. 

All  of  these  regulations  should  vary  in  zones  of  different  char- 
acter, for  it  is  obvious  that  the  same  law  cannot  be  productive  of 
the  best  results  when  applied  to  both  office-building  and  residential 
districts.  At  the  present  moment  I  am  not  primarily  concerned 
about  the  exact  nature  of  these  various  regulations  so  long  as  we 
base  these  regulations  upon  the  results  of  our  own  experience. 

Districting  versus  restrictions 

We  should  not  confuse  the  term  "  zoning  "  with  the  ideas  sur- 
rounding the  present  use  of  the  word  "  restriction."  It  is  true  that 
restrictions  upon  property  are  a  necessary  part  of  any  scheme  of 
zoning,  but  there  is  a  fundamental  difference  in  the  nature  of  the 
restrictions.  When  a  group  of  individuals  restrict  a  section  of  the 
city,  it  is  done  for  the  purpose  of  conserving  that  section  for  a  par- 
ticular use.  In  practice  this  object  is  rarely  attained  for  the  simple 
reason  that  there  are  parcels  of  property  within  that  section  which, 
for  one  reason  or  another,  are  withheld,  with  the  result  that  sooner 
or  later  these  pieces  are  used  for  a  purpose  detrimental  to  the  ad- 
jacent property,  causing  the  restricted  property  to  depreciate  in 
value.  Oftentimes  the  restrictions  made  by  individual  owners  ham- 
per seriously  the  growth  of  a  section,  and  in  practice,  instead  of  con- 
serving the  section  to  a  better  development  of  the  particular  activity 
for  which  it  was  intended,  these  restrictions  simply  serve  as  a  check 
upon  its  development  owing  to  the  fact  that  owners  know  that  sooner 
or  later  the  restrictions  will  be  removed,  when  other  activities  will 
enter  and  disintegrate  the  values.  When  the  city  places  restrictions 
over  a  section,  these  apply  to  all  properties,  with  the  result  that  there 
immediately  begins  a  more  permanent  development  along  the  lines 
for  which  the  section  is  to  be  used,  and  properties  increase  in  value. 

We  have  given  too  much  weight  to  the  ideas  surrounding  geo- 
graphical location  and  have  not  considered  seriously  the  idea  that 


174 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


the  value  of  property  depends  upon  the  degree  to  which  a  certain 
section  is  developed  for  a  certain  use.  Values  appreciate  in  sections 
where  it  is  known  that  the  development  is  to  be  maintained  along 
definite  and  well-established  lines.  For  instance,  the  values  in  office- 
building  sections  are  dependent  upon  the  degree  of  the  development 
of  that  section  for  that  particular  use.  This  idea  holds  in  loft,  fac- 
tory and  residential  sections,  shopping  districts,  and  the  like,  and 
experience  has  taught  us  that  as  soon  as  new  elements  are  intro- 
duced into  these  sections  of  a  nature  tending  to  lower  the  standard 
of  the  section  the  values  of  the  properties  are  correspondingly  re- 
duced. There  is  no  economy  in  the  present  method  of  continually 
shifting  geographically  the  various  interests  of  the  city.  We  should 
rather  foster  the  idea  of  developing  various  sections  for  a  particular 
use  and  place  a  premium  upon  the  erection  of  permanent,  well- 
designed  structures  within  that  section,  to  be  used  for  that  particular 
purpose  for  which  the  section  is  restricted. 

In  other  words,  we  should  consider  community  interest  as  dom- 
inating individual  interest,  for  it  is  alone  through  such  a  conception 
of  the  problem  that  we  can  produce  laws  which  will  protect  the  in- 
dividual owners  of  property  against  serious  loss  through  the  acts 
of  other  property  owners. 

Limitation  of  height 

I  do  not  believe  that  we  can  properly  provide  light  and  air  for 
the  interior  of  the  block  or  for  the  streets,  or  insure  our  streets  from 
being  intolerably  congested,  unless  we  so  frame  our  ordinances  in 
office-building  sections  that  the  total  volume  of  the  buildings  upon 
a  block  shall  not  exceed  the  volume  of  the  present  12-story  struc- 
ture built  under  the  present  laws  and  ordinances. 

In  apartment  and  tenement-house  districts  we  should  allow  no 
part  of  a  structure  to  exceed  12  stories  in  height,  and  we  should 
materially  increase  the  area  of  the  unoccupied  space  within  the  block. 
In  sections  given  over  to  the  use  of  lofts  and  factories  we  should 
limit  the  maximum  height  to  12  stories,  materially  increasing  the 
area  of  open  spaces,  and  we  should  limit  the  occupancy  by  a  coeffi- 
cient in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  it  highly  advantageous  for  owners 
either  to  improve  their  property  or  to  erect  a  better  class  of  buildings 
than  is  now  provided  under  our  laws. 

The  limit  of  height  of  facade  upon  the  street  may  well  vary  in 
these  different  zones,  but  in  all  cases  it  should  be  related  to  the 
width  of  street  and  in  no  case  should  it  exceed  twice  the  width  of 
the  street. 

Reflective  walls 

In  all  new  structures  in  the  office-building  section  we  should  de- 
mand a  white,  reflecting  wall  surface  for  the  exterior,  and  we  should 
require  that  the  walls  of  all  yards,  courts  and  open  spaces  within 
the  block  be  made  and  maintained  white. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED  1 75 

Statement  by  Mr.  D.  Austin,  Architect,  Boston,  Mass., 

October  3,  19 13 

Mr.  Austin  said  he  was  glad  that  the  high  buildings  were  in  New 
York  and  not  in  Boston. 


Statement  by  Mr.  F.  R.  Bangs,  Trustee  and  Real  Estate 
Operator,  Boston,  Mass.,  October  4,  19 13 

Height  limit  a  benefit  to  real  estate  values 

Mr.  Bangs  said  that  no  prudent  investor  would  care  to  erect 
buildings  above  the  height  limit  in  Boston.  If  all  buildings  were 
built  up  to  the  extreme  height  allowed,  the  lower  stories  would  be 
less  valuable  than  at  present.  The  lower  stories  would  produce  a 
smaller  return.  This  being  the  case,  he  thought  it  uneconomical  to 
build  high  structures.  He  would  be  sorry  to  see  the  height  limit  re- 
moved in  Boston.  The  net  return  from  buildings  has  not  been 
diminished  by  the  height  limit  in  Boston.  Land  values  have  not 
been  depreciated.  The  height  limit  has  not  retarded  the  improve- 
ment of  property  or  prevented  advance  building.  If  all  buildings 
in  District  A  were  raised  to  a  height  of  125  feet,  tenants  could  not 
be  found  for  the  increased  floor  space.  Office  rents  in  Boston  vary 
between  $1  and  $2.50  per  square  foot  of  floor  space,  with  $1.50 
about  the  average. 


Statement  by  Mr.  William  P.  Bannister,  President  of  the 
Brooklyn  Chapter  of  the  American  Institute  of 
Architects,  October  10,  191 3 

Suggestions  have  been  made  to  you  by  Mr.  Flagg  and  others 
which  if  put  into  effect  would  regulate  the  height  of  buildings  rela- 
tive to  their  surroundings  without  trespassing  upon  the  right  to 
light  and  air  of  the  holders  of  adjacent  property,  yet  admitting  of  a 
latitude  regulated  only  by  the  existing  conditions;  this  is  the  true 
solution  to  the  problem. 

The  following  reasons  for  the  regulation  of  the  height  of  build- 
ings not  only  justify  such  regulation,  but  should  make  it  imperative: 

1.  The  preservation  of  the  right  to  light  and  air  to  all  those 
who  own  or  occupy  adjacent  property. 

2.  As  a  health  provision,  the  existing  lack  of  regulation  ulti- 
mately leading  to  injury  to  health  of  thousands  employed  to  work 
under  intolerable  conditions  of  artificial  light  and  lack  of  whole- 
some ventilation. 

3.  The  concentration  of  property  values  to  the  detriment  of  an 
average  development  of  the  city  as  relates  to  building. 

In  the  passing  of  any  rule  regulating  the  height  of  buildings  the 
first  question  to  be  answered  is,  can  it  be  lawfully  done ;  the  answer 


i/6 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


is  that  such  a  law  has  been  enacted  and  undisputed  in  the  Tenement 
House  Act,  and  that  the  regulation  of  ground  occupancy  by  city 
ordinance,  a  restrictive  measure,  has  never  been  declared  unlawful. 

The  next  question  is  whether  the  owner  of  any  property  has 
any  property  right  to  a  reasonable  amount  of  light  and  air  of  which 
he  may  not  be  deprived  without  compensation ;  elevated  railroad 
litigation  would  indicate  that  he  has  such  a  right. 

Under  such  a  rule  as  laid  down  by  Mr.  Flagg  it  appears  to  me 
that  the  owner  of  a  piece  of  property  is  restricted  as  to  the  height 
of  his  building  only  to  the  extent  that  such  development  would  de- 
prive the  citizen  and  owner  of  adjoining  property  of  an  unquestion- 
able right  to  light  and  air. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Alfred  D.  Bernard,  Real  Estate  Officer, 
United  States  Fidelity  and  Guarantee  Company, 
Baltimore,  Md.,  December  ii,  1913 

Light  and  air 

All  the  larger  cities  of  the  country  are  experiencing  a  terrible 
depression  in  what  is  known  as  inside  residence  real  estate.  Why? 
Because  changes  in  the  mode  of  living,  the  improvement  in  rapid 
transit  conditions,  the  call  of  the  suburbs  has  created  a  new  outside 
residence  district  where  sunshine,  light  and  air  are  possible.  The 
advantages  of  sunshine,  light  and  air  are  self-evident,  and  are  ex- 
tending to  the  office,  the  factory,  the  store  building  and  to-day  these 
conditions  must  be  met.  Therefore,  before  we  consider  the  regula- 
tion of  the  height  of  buildings,  we  must  consider  the  radiation  of 
light  and  reasonable  ventilation,  and  pass  some  laws  regulating  light 
courts,  vent  shafts,  and  light  larceny. 

A  number  of  the  larger  cities  have  passed  laws  affecting  outside 
light  in  various  buildings,  principally  tenements,  which  are  held 
valid  exercises  of  police  power,  and  in  a  number  of  the  cities  where 
height  regulations  are  in  force  the  sky  limit  bears  a  proportion  to 
the  width  of  the  street. 

Construction  engineers  have  found  that  floor  space  is  undesirable 
over  25  feet  from  outside  light,  so  that  a  building  50  feet  wide 
must  be  served  with  light  on  at  least  two  sides.  Therefore  modern 
sky-scraper  construction  must  reckon  with  the  light  problem,  and 
in  our  observation  all  the  tall  buildings  which  give  reasonable  re- 
turns are  located  on  corners,  and  either  have  their  side  light  pro- 
tected by  ownership  of  the  adjoining  property  or  steal  their  light 
over  the  adjoining  holding. 

We  would  therefore  advocate  the  passage  of  a  law  requiring 
all  construction  to  be  used  for  homes,  tenements,  apartments,  hotels, 
offices  and  factories  to  have  at  least  1  square  foot  of  window  space 
to  every  100  feet  of  cubic  contents.  This,  however,  is  not  to  apply 
to  shops,  stores  or  warehouses.    No  radiation  of  light  through  a 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


177 


light  court  or  skylight  should  be  permitted  further  than  one-tenth 
of  the  area  of  the  court  or  skylight.  That  is  to  say,  each  room  in 
an  office  building,  apartment  or  tenement  would  require  a  window 
approximately  3^  by  7  feet  for  every  250  square  feet  of  floor  space 
10  feet  high,  if  the  window  is  located  on  a  street;  and  no  room 
could  be  located  on  a  light  court  larger  than  the  area  of  such  court, 
and  no  room  could  be  lit  by  a  skylight  10  x  10  which  would  be 
farther  than  10  feet  from  a  point  25  feet  from  street  light,  with 
the  same  exceptions  in  favor  of  shops,  stores  and  warehouses  for 
storage. 

Fire 

The  modern  sky-scraper  is  advertised  as  fireproof.  Baltimore 
and  San  Francisco  have  demonstrated  that  this  is  not  true,  and 
while  we  might  safely  assume  that  under  ordinary  conditions  a  fire 
in  a  modern  steel-cage  building  would  not  make  any  considerable 
headway  if  its  contents  were  not  a  special  hazard,  still  we  must 
reckon  with  the  conflagration,  which  when  well  started  will  burn 
out  if  not  burn  down  the  most  approved  steel  and  concrete  con- 
struction. It  is  therefore  apparent  that  if  we  must  have  the  sky- 
scraper we  must  safeguard  its  occupants  so  that  reasonable  fire 
protection  may  be  had. 

To  this  end  we  would  recommend  that  every  building  above  5 
stories  in  height  be  provided  with  adequate  fire  apparatus,  and  if 
the  city  water  pressure  is  not  sufficient  to  furnish  water  to  the  top, 
that  a  sprinkler  or  water  tower  be  provided. 

That  all  factories  and  lofts  over  three  stories  in  height  have  the 
first  floor  fireproof. 

That  all  factories,  warehouses  or  lofts  having  their  own  heating 
plant  have  a  fireproof  ceiling  over  the  basement. 

That  all  factories  and  lofts  or  warehouses  used  for  light  manu- 
facturing" above  4  stories  above  cellar  have  fireproof  elevator  shafts 
with  automatic  wire-glass  doors,  so  that  in  case  of  fire  they  will 
not  act  as  flues  to  carry  the  fire. 

That  every  factory,  loft  or  warehouse  used  for  light  manufac- 
turing be  provided  with  one  fireproof  stairway  for  every  25,000 
square  feet  of  floor  space  in  the  building,  and  that  the  stairway 
shall  not  be  located  adjoining  an  open  elevator  shaft,  and  must  go 
to  the  street  level. 

Additional  outside  fire-escapes  should  also  be  provided,  and 
monthlv  fire  drills  be  held  in  all  factories  where  employees  work- 
above  the  third  floor. 

These  ideas  are  merely  suggestive,  but  where  lives  are  lost  in 
fires  the  conditions  usually  show  that  the  fire  shot  up  the  elevator 
shaft,  or  the  stairway  was  cut  off.  or  the  loss  the  result  of  panic. 
There  is  no  such  thing  as  reasoning  with  a  panicky  crowd.  The 
writer  was  in  one,  and  he  thinks  he  has  a  fair  share  of  nerve,  but 
he  lost  his  head  and  ran  with  the  others. 


i78 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Esthetic  considerations 

Building  heights  should  not  and  in  our  judgment  cannot  be 
limited  by  esthetic  considerations.  If  the  owner  of  a  lot  cannot 
improve  it  as  he  desires,  it  must  be  because  the  improvement  tran- 
scends the  police  power  in  the  absence  of  land  restriction,  and  the 
only  practical  way  to  preserve  neighborhood  building  harmony  is 
to  impose  mutual  building  restrictions  on  acreage  tracts  before  de- 
velopment, which  restrictions  will  operate  as  covenants  running 
with  the  land.  Reasonable  mutual  restrictions  of  this  kind  have 
been  generally  upheld  by  the  courts  throughout  the  country. 

Congestion 

It  is  an  axiom  that  the  shortest  distance  between  two  points  is 
a  straight  line,  therefore  congestion  of  thoroughfare  is  not  neces- 
sarily on  the  best  business  streets.  Traffic  follows  the  straight 
line  of  least  resistance,  so  that  in  the  larger  cities  of  the  North, 
South,  East  and  West  thoroughfares  have  some  objective  points; 
but  are  naturally  augmented  by  the  character  of  the  streets  and  the 
topography  of  the  city. 

New  York  has  been  badly  developed.  The  shape  of  Manhattan 
should  have  suggested  to  the  city  solons  of  one  hundred  years  ago 
that  the  north  and  south  streets  should  be  200  feet  apart  instead 
of  the  east  and  west  streets.  The  congestion  on  Fourth,  Fifth  and 
Sixth  Avenues  and  Broadway  is  natural.  It  is  intensified  by  the 
added  height  of  buildings,  but  if  we  were  to  adopt  a  150-foot  or 
even  100-foot  skyline  for  any  of  these  streets  the  congestion  would 
still  be  apparent.  To  my  mind  the  congestion  of  thoroughfare 
follows  naturally  the  growth  of  the  city.  Broadway  is  no  wider 
to-day  than  the  first  day  the  writer  saw  it,  while  the  population  of 
the  city  has  doubled. 

Prevention  of  wider  area  of  development 

Able  engineers  and  real  estate  experts  have  argued  that  the 
unlimited  skyline  has  restricted  the  growth  of  the  business  areas 
of  large  cities,  and,  given  a  sane  building  height,  the  natural  growth 
of  cities  would  increase  the  usable  area  of  high  valued  land,  which 
would  hold  the  taxable  basis  up  to  present  levels  by  increasing  the 
territory  available  for  business.  Whereas  the  sky-scraper  has 
created  abnormal  land  values  in  limited  areas,  and  depressed  the 
adjoining  real  estate  by  curtailing  its  utility. 

At  first  blush  this  proposition  would  appear  unanswerable,  but 
with  great  deference  to  the  exponents  of  this  line  of  thought,  we 
would  say  it  is  almost  analogous  to  the  argument  in  favor  of  free 
silver. 

It  was  possible  for  the  United  States  to  keep  silver  at  a  parity 
with  gold  so  long  ;is  we  could  persuade  other  countries  that  it  was 
as  good  as  gold  :  and  in  real  estate  you  can  create  a  business  area 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


179 


wherever  you  can  convince  the  people  business  can  be  successfully 
conducted,  and  you  can  enlarge  that  area  as  far  as  people  will 
circulate. 

Let  us  illustrate.  The  great  mass  of  buyers  reach  the  shopping 
district  by  the  cars.  If  you  are  not  able  to  answer  the  question 
yourself,  ask  your  wife  if  she  went  to  Wanamaker's  for  a  piece  of 
ribbon  of  a  particular  shade,  and  Wanamaker  did  not  have  the 
exact  shade  but  something  that  would  answer,  would  she  go  to 
Macy's  for  it?  Each  large  city  has  its  financial  district,  and  it 
must  be  bounded  by  an  ordinary  walk.  It  is  quite  true  that  a  small 
bank  could  do  a  good  business  in  Harlem,  but  the  business  would 
be  neighborhood.  It  is  equally  true  of  the  shopping  district.  If 
the  landlords  on  23d  Street  lost  their  heads  and  by  extortionate 
rents  drove  the  retail  business  a  mile  farther  north,  why  did  values 
ease  off  if  a  retail  district  has  no  limit  in  area?  The  exclusive 
shopping  district  once  centered  around  Madison  Square  is  pushing 
up  to  40th  Street ;  so  is  the  shopping  district  for  the  masses. 
They  tell  us  that  Fifth  Avenue  values  are  coming  off.  Did  they 
ever  exist?  They  tell  us  that  the  exclusive  shopping  district  is 
working  into  the  cross  streets  because  of  undesirable  congestion 
due  to  pouring  a  non-buying  working  class  on  the  street  during 
shopping  hours.  This  is  only  qualifiedly  true,  in  the  writer's  judg- 
ment, but  the  principal  reason  is  that  the  exclusive  shop  is  passing, 
just  as  the  row  of  brownstone  fronts  is  passing.  The  multiplicity 
of  the  high-grade  department  stores  has  hit  the  exclusive  shop- 
keeper harder  than  the  loft  building,  and  the  shifting  to  the  cross 
streets  is  largely  due  to  falling  off  of  business  and  inability  to  pay 
the  rents  demanded. 

The  location  of  the  retail  business  district  in  a  given  citv  is 
often  capricious.  In  Baltimore  the  best  retail  business  street  is 
narrow,  crooked,  practically  blind  at  one  end  and  has  a  steep  grade 
at  the  other.  It  has  no  inherent  thoroughfare  conditions  whatever, 
and  was  started  by  the  removal  of  a  milliner  from  the  then  leading 
street  because  she  could  not  pay  the  rent  demanded  by  her  land- 
lord, and  to-day  values  on  the  then  leading  street  are  about  one- 
half  the  values  on  the  street  this  enterprising  woman  changed  from 
a  second-class  boarding-house  district. 

In  Washington  what  was  designed  to  be  the  business  thorough- 
fare has  been  a  failure,  while  the  business  is  largely  conducted  on 
two  ordinary  width  streets,  one  of  which  is  not  a  natural  thorough- 
fare. 

In  Philadelphia  the  best  retail  street  until  recently  was  narrow 
and  congested  till  values  got  too  high  for  ordinary  business,  which 
broke  into  the  next  street. 

Take  another  illustration.  Let  us  assume  that  ten  merchants 
would  build  as  many  large  first-class  department  stores  within  three 
blocks  of  Broadway  and  44th  street,  and  each  of  these  merchants 
would  agree  to  run  half-page  ads.  in  four  leading  daily  newspapers 


l80  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

at  least  four  days  a  week.  How  long  would  it  be  till  the  retail 
shopping  district  was  at  Broadway  and  44th  street?  Take  the  same 
ten  merchants  with  the  same  size  stores  and  the  same  amount  of 
advertising  and  locate  the  ten  on  Fifth  Avenue  between  Union 
Square  and  Central  Park.  Is  it  not  common  sense  that  all  would 
suffer,  and  the  small  shops  all  along  this  2j4  miles  of  street  reap 
to  a  large  extent  the  advantages  of  their  advertising? 

In  the  writer's  judgment,  taking  his  observations  of  cities,  the 
advertising  features  of  the  large  department  stores  are  more  potent 
in  fixing  shopping-district  values  than  any  other  factor  except  gen- 
eral location  and  utility. 

Necessity  for  high  buildings 

Now  let  us  point  out  three  arguments  in  favor  of  the  sky-scraper : 
No  building  may  be  successfully  rented  higher  than  three  stories 
above  the  cellar  without  an  elevator.  This  elevator  with  the  en- 
trance and  service  stairway  must  of  necessity  diminish  the  usable 
ground-floor  space  a  minimum  of  140  square  feet.  If  an  elevator  is 
a  necessity,  it  will  furnish  service  for  loft  purposes  to  three  addi- 
tional floors,  making  six;  therefore  the  lowest  serviceable  elevator 
building  would  be  six  stories  above  the  cellar.  Now  a  building  de- 
pending on  the  service  of  one  elevator  is  necessarily  unattractive,  as 
every  prospective  tenant  above  the  second  floor  will  want  to  dis- 
count the  danger  of  breakdown.  Two  elevators  would  deduct  only 
40  feet  additional  from  the  usable  ground-floor  space,  and  the  two 
elevators  serve  an  ordinary  building,  say  50  by  100.  10  stories  high. 
If  this  is  true,  the  most  economical  elevator  building  is  10  stories 
above  the  cellar,  which  indicates  an  extreme  skyline  125  feet  above 
curb,  allowing  18  feet  for  main  floor,  10  feet  net  for  9  stories, 
10  feet  for  floors  and  7  feet  for  roof  pitch.  The  first  floor  might 
be  cut  to  16  feet  and  the  second  increased  to  12  feet,  under  a  125- 
foot  skyline. 

If  the  skyline  is  restricted,  the  first  argument  is  the  argument  of 
the  tax-paver,  that  because  of  economies  of  operation  and  manage- 
ment, a  tall  building  will  produce  a  greater  net  revenue,  and  there 
being  no  happy  medium,  the  average  improvement  must  be  at  least 
10  stories  in  height  or  cut  to  a  maximum  of  3  stories ;  that  the  basis 
for  taxation  would  suffer  because  the  real  estate  owner  must  for 
economy  of  construction  choose  between  a  3-story  and  10-story 
building. 

We  will  refer  to  this  proposition  again  to  prove  that  it  is  sound, 
but  assuming  for  the  time  being  its  truth,  we  produce  for  your  con- 
sideration as  our  first  main  proposition  that  it  is  not  practical  to 
reduce  the  skyline  below  a  point  125  feet  above  curb  level  unless  you 
propose  to  eliminate  entirely  the  tall  building. 

The  second  argument  in  favor  of  the  sky-scraper  is  the  increased 
demand  for  office  space.  The  writer  remembers  when  the  majority 
of  physicians,  surgeons,  dentists,  dressmakers,  and  not  a  few  law- 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


181 


yers  had  their  offices  in  their  homes.  To-day  in  the  average  large 
city  the  majority  may  be  found  in  office  buildings.  Twenty-five 
years  ago  the  high-grade  tailors  occupied  large  ground-floor  spaces. 
To-day  a  large  number  are  found  on  upper  floors.  This  indicates 
that  certain  classes  of  business  may  be  conducted  above  the  ground 
floor,  and  this  fact  has  gone  to  increase  the  value  of  the  land,  so 
that  to-day  land  in  many  of  the  large  cities  will  not  earn  on  a 
ground-floor  rent,  interest  and  taxes  on  the  cost  of  land  plus  the 
cost  of  a  i-story  structure.  Therefore  if  building  heights  are  re- 
stricted, the  tendency  is  to  decrease  the  utility  of  the  land  and  cur- 
tail improvement  to  the  lowest  type,  increasing  the  fire  risk,  spread- 
ing out  the  area  of  the  business  district,  thus  increasing  the  cost 
of  government  without  any  compensating  returns,  for  it  is  notorious 
that  the  burden  of  the  cost  of  government  is  more  evenly  distributed 
over  a  compact  than  a  spread-out  city,  which  leads  me  to  observe, 
in  parenthesis,  that  Manhattan  is  suffering  from  too  much  annex- 
ation. 

The  third  argument  in  favor  of  a  restricted  skyline  is  that  it  is 
a  prohibition  of  legislative  action,  which  is  liable  to  repeal,  and 
while  if  uniformly  enforced  and  continued  in  force,  it  would  in 
time  have  a  tendency  to  equalize  some  land  values,  but  if  subject 
to  enlargement  or  possible  repeal  would  work  hardship  in  places 
where  it  was  followed. 


Statement  by  Reginald  Pelham  Bolton,  President  R.  P. 
Bolton  Co.,  Consulting  Engineers,  September  22,  1913 

High  buildings  uneconomical 

Some  limitation  of  the  present  excessive  height  of  building  con- 
struction would  be  a  benefit  to  the  general  value  of  real  estate,  and 
would  not  injure  values. 

The  construction  of  very  tall  buildings  has  been  supposed  to 
bring  about  an  increased  return,  commensurate  with  the  value  of 
the  site.  It  has  been  commonly  assumed  to  be  a  necessity,  in  order 
to  establish  such  values.  But  many  disappointments  have  resulted 
in  Manhattan  and  elsewhere,  because  the  fundamental  facts  have 
been  lost  sight  of  by  those  responsible  for  proportioning  and  plan- 
ning such  buildings.   These  facts  are : 

1.  Increased  height  involves  increased  cost  of  construction 
per  cubic  foot  of  building. 

2.  Increase  of  height  involves  increase  of  cost  of  operation  and 
maintenance  of  all  tenantable  space. 

3.  Excessive  height  injures  neighboring  properties  and  reduces 
local  rentals  by  creating  excessive  rentable  space. 

4.  Rentals  must  be  raised  in  proportion  to  height  of  a  building. 

5.  Less  rentable  space  per  floor  is  available  as  height  increases. 


182 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Sky-scrapers  create  blighted  districts 

The  facilities  for  vertical  construction,  afforded  by  the  steel 
cage,  have  unduly  hastened  the  increase  of  certain  properties  and 
sites,  to  the  disadvantage  of  others.  The  logical  growth  of  Manhat- 
tan caused  the  general  average  of  height  to  be  raised  about  one  story 
every  thirty-five  years,  or  one  generation,  until  the  advent  of  steel 
framing  about  twenty  years  ago  disturbed  the  process.  The  gen- 
eral height  of  all  buildings  in  lower  Manhattan  would,  without  this 
disturbance,  have  been  at  the  present  time  8  stories.  As  it  is,  the 
majority  of  the  older  buildings  remain  unimproved  at  low  levels, 
their  share  of  available  tenants  having  been  absorbed  by  steel-cage 
buildings.  The  vicinity  of  most  sky-scrapers  has  remained  stag- 
nated, and  in  close  proximity  to  such  buildings  as  the  Whitehall, 
West  Street,  Liberty  Tower,  60  Wall  Street,  and  numerous  others, 
will  be  found  old  unimproved  properties,  abandoned  residences,  the 
poorest  foreign  tenements,  cheap  lofts  and  stores  and  warehouses, 
almost  if  not  quite  equally  as  well  located,  which  no  one  would  ven- 
ture to  improve. 

This  condition  cannot  be  to  the  advantage  of  real  estate  in  gen- 
eral, however  much  a  few  may  benefit.  Usually  the  process  is  a 
general  loss.  The  construction  of  a  sky-scraper  amid  poor  surround- 
ings sets  a  forced  taxable  value  on  its  site.  This  is  promptly  used 
as  a  basis  of  comparison  for  the  values  of  contiguous  sites,  on  the 
assumption  that  they,  too,  can  be  improved  to  equal  extent. 

But,  as  has  been  shown  by  experience,  they  are  really  of  less 
value  than  before,  because  their  possible  improvement  is  discounted 
by  the  large  access  of  rentable  area  in  their  vicinity.  They  may 
make  some  small  gain  by  reason  of  the  introduction  of  the  larger 
body  of  tenants  into  the  district,  but  as  often  as  not  the  latter  are 
of  different  character  to  the  prior  class  of  occupants,  and  have  little 
or  no  relation  to  the  business  or  purposes  of  the  locality. 

The  unlimited  liberty  to  construct  to  any  extent,  without  regard 
to  the  needs  or  desires  of  neighbors,  and  often  to  their  direct  det- 
riment in  deprivation  of  light  and  air,  as  well  as  reduction  in  rentable 
values,  does  not  appear  to  me  to  be  a  constitutional  right  of  a  prop- 
erty owner.  Ownership  of  real  estate  carries  with  it  obligations  of 
various  kinds,  imposed  on  all  properties  as  common  sharers  in  the 
public  weal.  The  mere  limitation  of  height  only  does  not  therefore 
fully  meet  the  rights  of  all  property.  It  would  be  met  by  the  limita- 
tion of  multiplication  of  the  site  or  lot  area. 

The  effect  of  the  introduction  of  a  sky-scraper  into  a  city  block 
is  to  increase  the  area  of  the  block.  If  one  plot  owner  builds  a  sky- 
scraper, he  may  double  the  tenantable  area  of  the  block  and  drain 
away  every  tenant  from  the  rest.  It  would  seem  that  the  injured 
neighbors  would  have  some  recourse.  The  assumed  conditions  are 
not  fanciful.  The  agents  for  new  buildings  habitually  seek  out 
neighboring  tenants  and  offer  all  kinds  of  inducements  to  them  to 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


183 


abandon  their  tenancies.  Such  buildings  as  the  Hudson  Terminal 
by  these  tactics  did  irreparable  injury  to  other  property  owners  in 
the  vicinity. 

Nor  is  the  multiplication  of  plot  by  sky-scrapers  less  striking. 
The  Liberty  Tower,  constructed  over  the  whole  plot  area  of  5197 
square  feet,  with  thirty  floors  above  the  ground  level  and  two  below, 
has  added  twenty-three  times  the  plot  in  occupiable  space,  and 
thirty-two  times  the  plot  in  gross  building  area.  The  Woolworth 
Building,  occupying  a  plot  of  29,640  square  feet,  has  increased  the 
area  eighteen  times  in  net  occupiable  space,  and  thirty-one  times  in 
gross  floor  areas. 

Restriction  of  floor  area  as  a  height  limitation 

A  limitation  of  the  amount  of  increase  of  plot  area  would,  in 
my  judgment,  be  the  best  basis  for  limitation  of  excessive  heights,  as 
it  would  combine  with  the  financial  and  physical  considerations  to 
bring  about  limitations  of  the  shape  of  the  building,  to  the  advantage 
of  neighbors. 

Such  a  limitation  as,  for  instance,  to  ten  times  the  plot  area  would 
have  permitted  the  construction  of  the  Woolworth  Building  to  a 
height  of  12  stories,  and  its  tower  to  40  stories.  If  there  were  suit- 
able restrictions  as  to  building  frontages  on  streets,  the  form  of  the 
building  would  have  been  somewhat  changed  by  the  tower  being 
located  near  the  center  of  the  plot,  to  the  advantage  of  neighboring 
properties. 

The  limitation  which  appears  justifiable  in  the  public  interest 
at  this  date  is  nine  times  the  gross  plot  area  in  gross  interior  floor 
areas.  Coupled  with  a  restriction  as  to  cornice  heights,  and  per- 
mission to  build  higher  only  by  recession  from  all  sides  of  the  prop- 
erty lines,  the  access  of  light  and  air  to  streets  and  neighbors  would 
be  secured. 

The  result  is  that  advocated  by  Mr.  Ernest  Flagg,  and  demon- 
strated by  his  design  of  the  Singer  Tower. 

The  financial  cost  of  excessive  height  would  limit  the  construc- 
tion of  unduly  high  towers.  The  cost  of  such  towers  as  we  now 
have  in  this  city  is  from  40  to  80  per  cent  more  than  the  body  of 
the  building  per  cubic  foot. 

The  rentable  area  is  relatively  less  per  cubic  foot,  and  it  there- 
fore follows  that  the  rentals  must  be  excessively  high  if  a  proper 
return  is  to  be  secured.  When  the  cost  has  been  so  excessive,  the 
rentals  obtainable  cannot  pay  a  fair  return  on  the  investment.  Con- 
sequently the  lower  portion  of  such  buildings  must  make  up  the 
deficiency  by  increased  rentals  therein ;  but  it  is  a  fact  that  the  mere 
height  of  buildings  does  not  bringf  in  commensurate  rentals.  There 
are  actually  instances  in  lower  Manhattan  where  the  lower  floors 
of  some  sky-scrapers  are  unrentable  as  office  space,  and  are  rented 
for  storage  purposes,  on  account  of  the  insufficient  light  and  air 
they  afford. 


184  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

This  has  come  about  in  part  by  the  construction  of  the  building 
itself,  which  has  not  only  robbed  its  neighboring  properties  of  their 
share  of  light,  but  has  robbed  itself  of  its  own  share  of  reflected 
light.   The  same  remarks  apply  to  access  of  air  for  ventilation. 

If  such  buildings  had  been  constructed  with  due  regard  to  these 
two  features,  a  much  less  height  of  building  would  have  been  found 
to  produce  equal  if  not  better  returns. 

Advantage  of  light  and  air 

As  I  have  shown  conclusively  in  my  book — "Building  for  Profit" 
— the  economic  principle  of  building  construction  is  to  build  the 
least  possible  amount  producing  the  highest  possible  rental.  The 
construction  of  buildings  over  an  entire  plot,  even  if  it  be  a  corner 
plot  such  as  the  Liberty  Tower  occupies,  is  not  an  economic  financial 
undertaking.  The  mere  financial  value  of  direct  sunlight  in  a  build- 
ing is  worth  consideration.  Apart  from  its  pathogenic  value,  it  has 
a  distinct  effect  upon  the  heating  cost  of  a  building.  As  laid  down 
by  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  the  average  value  of  direct  sunlight 
in  this  region  is  274  heat  units  per  square  foot  per  hour,  which  will 
raise  the  temperature  of  214  cubic  feet  of  air  from  zero  to  70  de- 
grees per  hour. 

The  admitted  sunlight  in  windows  constructed  in  unduly  thick 
walls  is  extremely  limited.  In  a  window  3  feet  6  inches  wide,  in  a 
wall  only  12  inches  thick,  the  total  entrance  of  sunlight  is  limited 
to  145  degrees.  In  the  lower  floors  of  buildings  of  great  height  this 
supply  is  in  increasing  ratio  to  the  height  of  the  building. 

The  tower  form  of  building  is  the  most  advantageous,  because 
it  admits  of  the  passage  of  light  and  air  past  the  sides  of  the  building 
on  the  street  frontage,  and  admits  sunlight  and  reflected  light,  as 
well  as  air  to  the  lower  parts  of  the  contiguous  properties. 

Cornice  line 

The  limitation  of  the  cornice  height  of  buildings  on  street  front- 
ages is  important,  but  it  cannot  be  made,  in  my  opinion,  uniform. 
The  height  which  would  desirably  admit  light  to  opposite  properties 
upon  a  60-foot  street  is  different  in  the  case  of  a  north  and  south  and 
east  and  west  direction.  If  a  system,  therefore,  can  be  evolved  by 
which  an  inducement  will  be  offered  to  a  property  owner  whereby 
for  all  reductions  in  the  shape  of  the  building  above  a  certain  lim- 
ited height  he  will  be  permitted  to  add  to  the  total  area  to  be  con- 
structed, then  we  might  have  buildings  which  would  not  occupy  the 
whole  of  their  street  frontage  above  the  ground  floor,  and  would  set 
back  from  a  moderate  height  toward  the  rear  of  the  lot  into  the 
tower  shape.  The  probabilities  of  excessive  construction  of  the 
tower  would,  as  I  have  pointed  out,  be  limited  by  the  financial  cost 
of  construction. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


185 


Corner  lots  should  not  be  favored 

I  am  convinced  that  the  limits  of  construction  should  apply 
equally  to  corner  lots  as  to  interior  lots,  because  I  do  not  see  any 
inherent  right  in  the  ownership  of  a  corner  plot  over  the  rights  of 
the  ownership  of  interior  lots.  The  effect  of  excessive  construction 
on  corner  lots  is  pronouncedly  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  general 
public  in  the  matter  of  light  and  air  upon  the  public  streets.  I  do 
not  believe,  in  view  of  the  variations  in  the  width  of  our  streets,  that 
this  element  can  be  made  the  basis  of  the  limitation  of  the  height  of 
a  building.  If  it  were  done,  it  would  have  extraordinarily  irregular 
effects  in  the  narrow  side  streets  down-town ;  but  where  a  standard 
is  set,  as  in  the  upper  portion  of  our  city,  of  cross  streets  60  feet 
and  others  100  feet  in  width,  I  believe  the  height  of  cornice  should 
not  be  higher  than  1%  times  the  width  of  the  street  for  all  streets 
east  and  west,  and  for  avenues,  iy2  times  the  width  of  the  street. 
The  difference  is  due  to  consideration  of  the  orientation  of  the  street 
system  of  Manhattan,  the  avenues  of  which  lie  five  degrees  east  of 
north-northeast. 

Districting 

I  am  further  convinced  that  a  general  regulation  cannot  be 
equitably  applied  to  all  parts  of  the  city,  but  that  variations  of  con- 
ditions can  properly  be  made  upon  a  careful  study  of  each  location. 
This  is  due  to  numerous  conditions  rendering  a  height  justifiable  in 
one  place,  or  even  on  one  site,  where  it  would  be  entirely  unjustifiable 
on  another. 

Restriction  on  floor  area  most  desirable  height  limitation 

I  consider  that  the  most  desirable  solution  of  the  problem  would 
be  found,  first,  in  the  general  regulation  of  the  reproduction  of  lot 
area,  and  inducements  toward  the  construction  of  less  building  above 
the  street  level.  The  administration  and  application  of  this  general 
principle  should  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  standing  commission, 
with  power  to  determine  upon  the  suitability  of  every  plan  sub- 
mitted by  a  property  owner.  This  is  practically  the  process  now  in 
successful  operation  in  the  city  of  Paris,  and  unless  some  such  body 
is  placed  in  control  of  the  situation  in  New  York  we  cannot  expect 
that  the  growth  of  the  city  will  proceed  on  any  better  lines  than  it 
has  in  the  past,  which  must  be  admitted  to  be  the  most  haphazard, 
irregular  and  heterogeneous  combination  that  has  ever  afflicted  the 
growth  of  a  metropolis. 

Advantage  to  buildings  already  constructed 

One  of  the  points  which  has  generally  been  raised  in  opposition 
to  any  process  by  which  the  restriction  of  building  heights  is  con- 
templated is  that  those  who  have  already  constructed  buildings  will 
possess  a  superiority  of  advantage,  of  which  their  neighbors  are 
deprived.    The  answer  to  this  suggestion  is  twofold:    In  the  first 


i86 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


place,  excessive  construction  carries  with  it  an  increasing  burden  as 
time  proceeds,  due  to  excessive  depreciation,  and  so  soon  as  other 
buildings  are  constructed,  relative  possibilities  of  reduction  of  in- 
come. The  possession  of  an  already  constructed  sky-scraper  is  by 
no  means  to  be  regarded  as  unmitigated  advantage,  but  in  any  case, 
if  the  limitation  goes  into  effect,  it  must  have  the  eventual  result  of 
limiting  the  taxable  liabilities  of  property  improvement  in  their 
vicinity  while  it  leaves  the  existing  excessive  construction  liable  to  an 
increased  share  of  the  burden  of  taxation.  If,  for  instance,  a  single 
building  has  been  constructed,  reproducing  the  area  of  the  lot  twenty 
times,  while  the  contiguous  properties  are  permitted  in  future  only 
to  increase  the  plot  ten  times,  then  in  the  general  adjustment  of  tax- 
ation it  will  inevitably  come  about  that  the  high  building  will  be 
taxed  in  proportion  to  its  total  available  area. 

High  buildings  and  congestion 

Finally,  in  the  matter  of  safety,  the  interests  of  the  general  pub- 
lic, of  the  tenants  and  their  employees,  as  well  as  of  the  property 
owners  themselves,  all  combine  in  requiring  limitations  which  will 
preclude  some  of  the  very  dangerous  and  inconvenient  conditions 
resulting  from  excessively  high  building  construction.  The  conges- 
tion in  streets  has  been  frequently  referred  to,  and  is  increasingly 
apparent  where  undue  amounts  of  tenantable  area  are  crowded  upon 
a  single  thoroughfare.  The  limitations  of  the  movement  of  foot 
passengers  are  fixed  by  physical  laws.  I  have  made  extensive  obser- 
vations upon  the  movements  of  crowds  in  Manhattan,  and  have  de- 
termined the  average  speed  of  movement  of  individual  and  numbers 
of  pedestrians. 

The  speed  of  individual  women  on  level  sidewalks  is  270  feet 
per  minute;  that  of  men,  320  feet  per  minute;  but  these  speeds  are 
reduced  as  soon  as  the  individuals  merge  in  the  crowd  to  an  average 
rate  of  only  224  feet  per  minute. 

High  buildings  dangerous  in  case  of  fire 

The  element  of  safety  in  panic  and  fire,  by  prompt  removal  of 
the  occupants  of  a  building,  is  one  which  occupies  a  prominent  place 
in  the  public  mind  at  present,  with  the  lessons  of  the  recent  disasters 
before  us.  Unless  some  system  such  as  the  fire-dividing  wall,  de- 
vised and  advocated  by  Mr.  H.  F.  J.  Porter,  which  to  my  mind  is  the 
only  thoroughly  satisfactory  provision  to  be  adopted,  then  the  limi- 
tation of  occupancy  of  the  floors  of  high  buildings  should  be  rigidly 
defined  and  enforced. 

Some  years  ago  I  made  inquiry  of  Chief  Croker  as  to  his  ideas 
of  the  maximum  time  allowable  in  securing  the  exit  of  the  occupants 
of  office  buildings.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  in  these  sky-scraper 
buildings  the  stairway  is  practically  impracticable  as  a  means  of 
egress  from  the  upper  floors,  the  determination  of  safety  of  the 
occupants  under  present  conditions  is  found  in  the  limitation  of  ele- 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


187 


vator  capacity.  Mr.  Croker  expressed  the  view  that  the  elevators 
should  be  able  to  take  the  entire  occupants  of  a  building  to  the  street 
level  certainly  within  a  period  of  time  not  exceeding  twenty  minutes. 

It  will  suffice  for  me  to  say  that  there  are  buildings  in  Manhat- 
tan the  occupants  of  which  could  not  be  removed  by  the  elevators 
in  half  an  hour,  although  the  number  of  persons  occupying  the  space 
is  less  than  one-fourth  of  what  is  permissible  in  loft  buildings  under 
the  factory  law. 

In  the  latter  class  of  buildings  now  so  prevalent  in  heights  of 
12  stories  and  upward,  it  is  possible  to  crowd  employees  into  a  space 
allowing  only  25  square  feet  to  each  person.  If  these  occupants  are 
expected  to  make  their  exit  by  the  stairways  such  as  are  now  com- 
monly in  use,  then  such  occupancy  should  be  prohibited,  and  the 
number  of  occupants  reduced  to  that  which  can  readily  find  an  exit 
within  a  very  few  minutes'  time. 

Mr.  Porter  has  made  the  most  enlightening  investigations  and 
tests  upon  this  subject,  and  from  his  figures  I  have  derived  the  fact 
that,  if  such  buildings  as  I  have  referred  to  should  be  crowded  to 
their  maximum  presumable  occupancy,  while  the  occupants  of  the 
lower  floors  could  make  their  exit  within  two  minutes,  yet  the  oc- 
cupants of  the  upper  floors  could  not  make  any  exit  at  all  until  the 
lower  floors  have  been  progressively  emptied,  and  therefore  the  oc- 
cupants of  the  top  floor  would  not  be  able,  under  the  best  circum- 
stances, to  secure  an  exit  under  about  fifteen  minutes. 

If  security  to  the  occupants  of  tall  buildings  is  an  object,  then 
the  methods  of  construction  should  require  the  provision  of  a  zone 
of  safety  in  the  form  of  a  division  of  the  building  by  a  fire-wall, 
each  portion  having  separate  means  of  exit  by  elevator  and  stairway. 
If  this  provision  were  established  as  a  condition  of  high  construc- 
tion of  any  type  of  building,  it  would  have  a  distinctly  limiting  effect 
upon  the  height.  Summarizing  my  suggestions,  therefore,  I  should 
recommend : 

1.  The  establishment  of  a  standing  commission  of  examination 
on  plans  of  all  buildings,  empowered  to  pass  upon  the  general  ques- 
tions of  suitability  to  locality  and  influence  upon  contiguous 
properties. 

2.  The  restriction  of  the  allowable  increase  of  the  area  of  a  site 
to  an  extent  variable  with  the  locality,  but  not  exceeding  that  which 
can  be  profitably  applied  not  only  to  the  property  for  which  a  plan 
is  proposed,  but  to  contiguous  property. 

3.  The  restriction  of  allowable  height  of  vertical  construction 
on  street  frontage,  the  height  being  varied  by  permission  to  increase 
in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  frontage  construction  omitted,  ad- 
mitting air  and  light  to  the  street. 

4.  The  prohibition  of  dependence  for  interior  light  and  ventila- 
tion upon  borrowed  openings  on  abutting  properties. 

5.  The  application  of  assessed  valuations  of  buildings  upon  the 
proportionate  extent  of  reproduction  of  lot  areas. 


i88 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Statement  by  Mr.  David  Knickerbacker  Boyd,  Architect, 
Philadelphia,  June  27,  1913 

Elevator  service  and  high  buildings 

It  is  satisfactory  for  the  rest  of  the  world  that  New  York 
should  proceed  as  fast  as  it  can  to  the  logical  extreme  in  high  build- 
ings. What  the  rest  of  the  world  wants  to  know  is:  What  will 
it  come  to  ?  What  is  the  limit,  and  what  are  going  to  be  the  conse- 
quences of  building  up  to  the  limit? 

The  limit  in  height  is  practically  in  sight,  says  Mr.  W.  A.  Lang- 
ton  in  the  "  Canadian  Architect."  Passenger  elevators,  which 
were  the  generating  factor  in  these  buildings,  are  also  fixing  their 
limitations.  Accessibility  to  the  street  level  is  what  is  required  for 
an  office ;  and  when  buildings  are  so  high  that  time  is  wasted  in 
going  and  coming  in  the  elevator  the  offices  in  the  highest  floors 
will  not  rent  sufficiently  well.  The  device  of  express  elevators  gets 
over  the  difficulty  to  some  extent,  but  in  the  first  place  there  is  a 
limit  to  the  percentage  of  floor  space  that  can  be  given  up  to  the 
elevator  shafts  if  the  building  is  to  pay,  and  in  the  second  place 
there  is  a  speed  limit  to  elevators.  What  is  known  as  a  "  nausea 
limit "  is  recognized ;  anything  above  this  rate  of  speed  is  found  to 
be  uncomfortable,  at  least  for  landsmen.  For  men  this  rate  is  said 
to  be  720  feet  a  minute ;  for  women  not  more  than  600  feet,  and  the 
descent  must  be  much  less  rapid  than  this.  Anything  faster  than 
400  feet  a  minute  going  down  is  distressing;  so  that  about  600  feet 
per  minute  up  and  400  feet  per  minute  down  is  the  maximum  for  an 
express  elevator.  The  floor-to-floor  elevator  is  still  further  reduced 
in  speed  to  enable  the  operator  to  make  a  prompt  stop.  If  with 
higher  speed  he  bobs  up  and  down  at  every  floor,  a  consequence 
partly  of  human  weakness  and  partly  of  elasticity  of  steel  rope, 
there  is  no  ultimate  gain  in  speed  and  considerable  waste  of  power. 
Limiting  calculations  are  often  upset  by  new.  inventions ;  but  where 
the  human  body  is  the  measure  there  is  a  standard  which  may  be 
relied  on  not  to  change.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  a  more  rapid  mo- 
tion up  or  down  for  human  beings  than  the  present  nausea  limit, 
or  of  more  abrupt  stops  at  this  rate  of  speed  without  great  discom- 
fort to  the  occupants  of  the  car ;  and  we  may  therefore  accept  as  a 
scientific  datum  the  present  opinion  of  engineers  in  New  York  that 
the  limit  of  business  buildings  due  to  the  limited  speed  of  elevators 
is  between  25  and  30  stories. 

Air  and  ventilation 

This  may  be  the  limit  of  height,  but  how  to  fix  the  limit  of  con- 
tinuity? A  sky-scraper  at  intervals  is  a  gain  in  every  way;  it  gives 
well  lighted,  airy  and  quiet  offices,  and  it  makes  the  street  pic- 
turesque. A  row  of  sky-scrapers  converts  the  street  into  a  box 
canyon  of  unwholesome  gloom ;  but  it  is  not  to  be  compared  to  the 
gloom  and  unwholcsomeness  within  the  buildings  themselves.  This 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


condition  of  affairs  is  rapidly  approaching  in  New  York.  There  is 
what  almost  amounts  to  a  sky-scraper  war  going  on.  The  early  tall 
buildings  in  which,  with  more  confidence  than  judgment,  the  party- 
walls  were  filled  with  windows,  are  now  in  an  awkward  position. 
Sky-scrapers  are  rising  beside  sky-scrapers  and  blocking  up  whole 
walls  of  windows.  Rooms  which,  when  the  buildings  were  erected, 
had  the  winter  sun  and  the  summer  breeze,  are  now  sealed  up  in 
darkness  forever,  and  the  sanitary  consequences  are  beginning  to 
cause  alarm.  In  the  lower  rooms,  in  a  street  of  continuous  sky- 
scrapers, there  is  no  light  anyway,  and  if  darkness  is  to  invade  the 
upper  stories  too  the  unwholesomeness  of  the  overcrowding  in  these 
expensive  offices  is  going  to  be  as  bad  as  that  in  the  poor  tenements, 
which  so  much  effort  has  been  made  to  stop.  At  a  recent  meeting 
of  the  Municipal  Art  Society  a  prominent  speaker  said: 

"  I  read  in  my  newspaper  to-day  of  the  benevolent  project  to  build  a 
great  hospital  for  consumptives,  the  victims  of  tuberculosis,  where  they 
may  have  air  and  sunlight.  And  in  the  same  paper  I  read  of  plans  for  a 
30-story  building.  What  are  we  trying  to  do?  What  do  we  mean  by  putting 
up  these  horrible  structures,  to  the  lower  floors  of  which  no  light  can  ever 
penetrate?  We  build  hospitals  for  the  poor  consumptive,  and  then  we  turn 
around  and  erect  sky-scraping  structures  where  consumption  may  breed,  so 
that  we  shall  not  lack  for  patients." 

Congestion 

It  is  not  merely  the  darkness,  but  the  crowding  of  the  streets 
and  buildings  which  is  a  menace  to  health  and  safety.  This  same 
speaker  calculates  that  "  when  Broadway  is  lined  with  these  struc- 
tures there  won't  be  room  for  the  tenants,  unless  they  are  packed 
horizontally  30  feet  thick."  It  is  not  hard  to  believe  that  this  calcu- 
lation, if  checked,  will  be  found  to  be  not  far  from  the  truth.  It  was 
calculated  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  that  the  buildings  of  9  stories 
or  more  in  the  lower  part  of  Manhattan  Island,  below  Leonard 
Street — that  is  to  say,  only  in  the  tall-building  district  proper — 
have  added  in  the  floor  area  above  their  fifth  stories  180  acres  of  area 
to  the  island.  The  estimated  cost  of  these  buildings  was  $33,000,000. 
There  is  said  to  be  $10,000,000  worth  of  buildings  of  the  same  sort 
in  process  of  erection  now,  so  that,  as  area  may  be  presumed  to 
compare  consistently  with  prices,  when  these  are  completed,  which 
will  not  be  long  at  the  rate  these  buildings  go  up  now,  there  will  be 
added  to  this  small  district  240  acres  of  standing  room  above  the 
streets ;  but  there  will  be  only  the  same  old  streets  to  walk  in,  and 
these  more  than  ever  filled  with  vehicles  from  other  parts.  The 
Broad  Exchange  Building  has  a  floor  area  of  12^  acres  and  a  nor- 
mal population  of  4,000  persons.  Apply  this  rate  of  population  to 
the  60  acres  or  so  of  floor  area  (above  the  fifth  story)  which  are  now 
being  constructed,  and  it  will  appear  that  this  portion  of  New  York 
is  about  to  receive  an  increase  in  daily  population  of  at  least  20,000 
souls.  If  they  only  were  souls,  if  "  in  going  from  place  to  place  " 
they  need  not  "  pass  through  the  intermediate  space,"  it  would  be  all 


190  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

right,  but  20,000  hustling  bodies  in  streets  where  one  has  already, 
in  going  to  keep  an  appointment,  to  allow  time  for  hindered  progress, 
is  nearing  the  limit. 

Method  of  limiting  height 

The  cure  is  exhibited  in  a  trio  of  buildings  on  Broadway :  a  two- 
story  bank  between  two  sky-scrapers.  This  is,  at  any  rate,  the 
solution  of  the  light  and  air  problem.  It  would  also  solve  the  prob- 
lem in  design.  The  two  stories  of  the  bank  run  with  the  two  stories 
which  constitute  the  base  of  the  tall  buildings ;  the  bank's  cornice 
with  the  top  member  of  this  base ;  their  columns  and  arcades  are 
fairly  comparable.  Here  is  dignity  without  monotony,  picturesque- 
ness  without  extravagance,  height  without  gloom,  every  gain  without 
any  loss  except  loss  of  space,  and  loss  of  space  is  gain  in  this  case. 

What  other  cities  have  to  learn  from  New  York  is  to  put  the 
limit  out  of  the  question  by  taking  precautions  in  time.  The  limit 
is  not  practical.  It  is  not  worth  while  to  shut  numbers  of  people 
in  darkness  for  the  sake  of  getting  them  all  together,  only  to  find 
that  it  would  be  better  if  there  were  not  quite  so  many  together. 
The  limit  of  elevators  and  the  limit  of  traffic  and  transit  in  the 
streets  seem  to  point  to  the  same  moderation  in  close  building  which 
is  indicated  by  the  requirements  of  planning  for  light.  It  is  not 
extreme  to  advocate  the  attainment  of  this  moderation  by  municipal 
regulation  requiring  that  every  tall  building  should  be  isolated  above 
such  height  as  usually  forms  the  base  stories  of  a  sky-scraper.  This 
allows  for  such  an  arrangement  as  is  suggested  by  the  bank  on 
Broadway  between  two  such  buildings.  It  would  make  a  satisfac- 
tory street  effect  if  the  cornice  at  this  height  were  continuous  and 
the  skyline  above  broken  at  intervals,  more  or  less  regular,  by  build- 
ings more  or  less  tall. 

A  way  to  bring  this  about  wrould  be  to  require  every  high  builder 
to  isolate  his  upper  stories  by  the  purchase  of  land  sufficient  for 
the  purpose.  This  would  not  be  tyrannical  legislation.  If  any 
criticism  is  to  be  made  of  it,  it  might  be  called  grandmotherly  legis- 
lation, for  it  is  looking  after  the  interests  of  the  high  builder  him- 
self to  compel  him  to  guard  the  value  of  his  building  in  this  way. 
It  is  not,  however,  entirely  grandmotherly,  for  the  interests  of  the 
public  are  also  guarded  in  matters  for  which  it  is  certainly  within 
the  province  of  the  city  fathers  to  care,  viz,  light  and  air  and  rea- 
sonable density  of  population.  There  is  also  plenty  of  precedent 
in  cities  which  owe  part  of  their  success  to  regulations  of  this  kind 
for  requiring  that  the  low  part  of  the  building  shall  have  for  esthetic 
considerations  a  cornice  line  or  a  fixed  height. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


191 


Statement  by  Mr.  Edward  B.  Boynton,  President  American 
Real  Estate  Co.,  September  26,  1913 

Argument  in  favor  of  height  limit 

Mr.  Boynton  said  he  thought  the  time  had  come  for  New  York 
to  limit  buildings  at  a  reasonable  height.  Restricting  the  height  of 
buildings  is  both  sanitary  and  equitable.  If  all  of  Manhattan  Island 
was  covered  with  tall  buildings,  a  wholly  insufferable  situation 
would  be  created.  Resulting  congestion  and  lack  of  light  and  air 
would  be  intolerable.  In  limiting  the  height  real  estate  values 
should  be  carefully  considered.  He  feared  that  any  limitation 
would  temporarily  harm  real  estate  values.  He  would  oppose  any 
limitation  that  would  cause  a  serious  break  in  values. 

Mr.  Boynton  said  that  a  height  limit  was  desirable  since  it  would 
spread  the  population  of  the  city  over  a  larger  area  and  would  tend 
to  diminish  congestion.  Tall  buildings  naturally  concentrate  busi- 
ness in  a  restricted  area  instead  of  distributing  it  over  a  wide  area. 
Street  congestion  is  also  greatly  increased  by  the  construction  of 
too  many  tall  buildings. 

Rules  for  height  limit 

Mr.  Boynton  said  that,  broadly  speaking,  the  street  width  should 
regulate  the  height.  The  height  might  be  controlled  by  the  per- 
centage of  lot  area  covered  by  buildings.  Consideration  should  also 
be  given  to  the  uses  to  which  the  buildings  are  put.  In  his  judg- 
ment fireproof  apartment  houses  should  not  exceed  12  stories  in 
height,  no  matter  what  material  is  used  in  their  construction.  He 
would  favor  a  height  limit  of  125  feet  and  two  stories  in  a  mansard 
on  Fifth  Avenue. 

Zoning 

Mr.  Boynton  said  that  the  so-called  zone  system  is  not  altogether 
feasible  because  new  sections  are  growing  up  in  the  city  constantly. 
Sometimes  these  new  centers  are  in  the  older  parts  of  the  city  and 
sometimes  they  develop  in  the  newer  sections.  As  the  city  becomes 
larger  and  larger,  these  new  centers  are  a  logical  feature  of  the 
city's  development. 


Statement  by  Mr.  W.  H.  Brainerd,  Boston,  Mass.,  October  3, 

1913 

Mr.  Brainerd  said  that  the  2J/2  times  the  street  width  limit  was 
a. very  real  limitation  on  the  height  of  buildings  in  down-town 
Boston.  The  application  of  this  rule  makes  the  maximum  height 
considerably  less  than  125  feet  in  the  case  of  much  property. 


192  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

Statement  by  Mr.  Simon  Brentano,  Representing  the  Fifth 
Avenue  Association,  June  19,  191 3 

Fifth  Avenue 

The  regulation  of  the  heights  of  buildings  in  the  city  of  New 
York  is  a  question  that  necessarily  arouses  serious  discussion,  and 
which  admits  of  no  solution  unless  the  subject  is  considered  in  its 
bearing  upon  all  the  great  disadvantages  that  come  from  no  restric- 
tion in  height  as  compared  with  the  advantages  that  come  from 
such  restriction  or  limitation  in  height. 

The  question  of  building  heights  limitation  cannot  be  argued  or 
advanced  except  in  connection  with  the  best  and  highest  interests 
of  the  community,  and  it  involves  also  the  consideration  and  almost 
the  necessity  of  adopting,  as  a  first  measure,  a  permanent  city-plan 
commission ;  a  study  and  knowledge  of  the  economic  effects  through 
greater  or  lessened  taxation  if  such  height  is  restricted ;  the  safety 
of  the  city  through  the  fire  hazard  created  and  maintained  by  reason 
of  buildings  of  unrestricted  height,  and  the  health,  comfort  and 
general  welfare  of  the  city,  whether  promoted  or  menaced  by  reason 
of  buildings  of  unrestricted  height. 

One  thing  this  inquiry  has  already  established,  it  seems  fair  to 
say,  namely,  that  it  is  no  longer  a  universal  opinion  that  a  building 
of  unrestricted  height  is  necessarily  the  final  form  of  construction 
in  the  city  of  New  York  for  the  purpose  of  conveniencing  the  needs 
of  modern  life,  or  business,  or  that  its  relation  to  the  economy  of 
the  city  is  such  as  it  was  but  a  short  time  ago  believed  to  be  by 
almost  every  one. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Charles  S.  Brown,  of  Douglas  Robinson- 
Charles  S.  Brown  Co.,  October  17,  19 13 

Limit  at  which  height  should  be  fixed 

Mr.  Brown  said  that  high  buildings  interfere  with  the  healthy 
growth  of  the  city  and  of  the  inhabitants.  They  are  a  menace  to 
life  and  property.  The  whole  city  should  be  subject  to  a  limit  in 
height  of  all  buildings  to  125  feet.  This  limit  would  not  harm  real 
estate  values.  The  width  of  the  lot  automatically  acts  as  a  limit 
in  height.  Mr.  Brown  prefers  to  see  10-story  buildings  on  50-foot 
lots  rather  than  on  25-foot  lots.  He  would  not,  however,  favor 
preventing  the  erection  of  a  building  125  feet  high  on  a  25-foot  lot. 

The  net  return  on  real  estate  docs  not  increase  with  the  height 
of  buildings.  The  depreciation  is  larger  in  the  case  of  a  high 
building  than  in  the  case  of  a  low  building.  Pic  knew  of  only  one 
building  where  the  owners  maintained  an  exact  and  elaborate  sink- 
ing fund  of  the  structural  loss.  In  his  opinion,  the  loft  buildings 
of,  say,  9  and  10  stories  produce  the  best  return.    None  of  the  very 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


193 


high  buildings  in  New  York  pay  a  good  return,  when  structural 
depreciation,  etc.,  is  considered;  they  are  also  extremely  difficult 
to  sell. 

Light  and  ventilation 

High  buildings  are  a  danger  to  health  because  of  the  absence  of 
sunlight  and  air :  because  they  are  bad  for  the  eyesight ;  because 
they  make  streets  like  canyons  (see  Exchange  PL),  casting  long 
shadows,  and  putting  far  off  property  in  the  shade.  When  built 
to  the  south  of  a  certain  piece  of  property  they  take  away  from  the 
latter  the  sun  and  the  southerly  winds  in  the  summer.  High  build- 
ings interfere  with  the  natural  rights  of  adjoining  land  by  taking 
away  its  view,  air,  sun,  etc.,  and  they  encroach  on  it  with  windows. 

High  buildings  and  congestion 

The  streets  of  New  York  were  made  for  buildings  of  from  4 
to  6  stories  high,  and  have  no  sewer  capacity  or  sidewalk  capacity 
for  the  great  mass  of  tenants  housed  in  very  high  buildings.  These 
high  buildings,  owing  to  their  size,  make  very  serious  congestion 
in  times  of  excitement,  and  are  therefore  dangerous.  In  the  cases 
of  mercantile  buildings  the  streets  are  crowded  with  trucks,  and 
unless  the  building  is  very  broad  the  trucks  take  up  more*  space  than 
the  frontage  and  overlap  adjoining  buildings,  which  they  have  no 
right  to  do,  and  fill  up  the  street,  and,  because  of  the  crowd,  inter- 
fere with  their  own  traffic  and  cause  great  delay  and  expense. 

Fire  hazard  of  high  buildings 

Smoke  alone  would  cause  a  great  panic  in  a  high  building  as  it 
rises  through  the  stairs  and  elevators.  The  stairs  are  generally  near 
the  elevators  and  are  never  very  broad  and  are  usually  crooked, 
and  do  not  act  as  fire-escapes  in  times  of  distress.  If  the  fire  is 
high  up,  the  Fire  Department  cannot  get  to  it  for  a  long  time,  and 
then  only  after  great  trouble.  In  case  of  a  conflagration,  the  high 
fireproof  buildings  would  crumble  (see  San  Francisco  and  Balti- 
more).   If  an  earthquake  should  come,  the  danger  is  incalculable. 

High  buildings  uneconomical 

High  buildings  do  not  pay.  Almost  every  one  who  is  familiar 
with  them  realizes  this  fact  and  knows  that  the  net  return  is  very 
small,  and,  in  addition,  no  one  knows  what  deterioration  a  high 
structure  suffers,  but  every  one  does  know  that  every  year  the 
amount  of  the  upkeep  increases ;  and,  now  that  real  estate  values 
have  fallen  in  New  York,  those  who  have  invested  in  these  high 
buildings  have  made  serious  losses,  much  greater  than  if  they  had 
improved  their  land  with  comparatively  low  buildings.  It  is  also 
known  that  in  the  case  of  tall  buildings  the  structural  depreciation 
is  large,  owing  to  the  great  amount  of  machinery  and  metal  in  them, 


194 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


and  owing  to  the  possible  changes  of  style  in  construction  and 
arrangement  which  are  continually  being  made. 

Extra  insurance  charges  because  of  height 

In  high  mercantile  buildings  it  is  often  difficult  to  get  the  full 
amount  of  insurance  required,  and  it  is  believed  that  in  some  of 
the  new  concentrated  districts  in  New  York  it  is  almost  impossible 
to  obtain  full  insurance  on  valuable  stocks,  such  as  silk,  laces,  etc. 
The  fire  insurance  companies,  as  a  whole,  are  uneasy  over  the  gen- 
eral situation,  and  feel  that  their  business,  owing  to  the  congestion 
and  concentration  of  great  masses  of  goods  and  buildings,  is  liable 
to  large  and  sudden  losses,  which,  in  New  York  City,  in  case  of  a 
conflagration,  would  be  many  times  greater  than  in  San  Francisco 
and  in  Baltimore. 

The  appearance  of  the  city 

The  city  can  be  much  improved  in  appearance  if  a  limit  of 
height  is  put  on  buildings.  (See  Paris,  London,  Berlin,  etc.)  The 
city  will  develop  on  an  artificial  basis  if  continued  on  its  present 
lines,  and  the  net  result  will  be  an  injury  to  the  health  of  the 
citizens.  This  general  question  has  reached  such  a  pass  that  the 
large  lending  institutions  are  not  willing  to  loan  on  high  buildings, 
realizing  that  these  buildings,  in  case  of  foreclosure,  are  almost 
impossible  to  sell. 

Injury  to  real  estate  in  general 

Real  estate  would  be  stronger  as  a  whole  if  a  height  limit  was 
put  on.  Then  the  new  buildings  would  spread  over  a  large  area ; 
this  would  increase  the  land  value  of  outlying  land ;  increase  build- 
ing operations,  and  give  the  city  much  greater  taxes.  (See  the 
property  west  of  Broadway  below  Chambers  Street  and  east  of 
William  Street,  which  should  logically  be  improved.) 

It  seems  to  be,  without  doubt,  true  that  a  city  which  is  built  in 
a  normal  way,  with  buildings  of  moderate  height  spread  over  a 
large  district  according  to  the  demand,  is  stronger  financially  and 
morally  than  one  which  has  intense  congestion  in  its  buildings,  with 
consequent  absence  of  improvements  near  the  congested  parts. 

High  buildings  depreciate  land  values 

High  buildings  lower  values  of  land  near  them.  In  theory  they 
should  not ;  practically  they  do,  partly  because  they  cause  an  over- 
supply  of  renting  space  which,  to  be  filled,  must  be  let  at  such  low 
prices  that  it  takes  tenants  from  other  buildings  near  by.  If  the 
supply  of  tenants  kept  pace  with  the  supply  of  space,  this  would 
not  occur,  but,  in  the  case  of  New  York,  the  growth  of  the  city 
has  in  no  sense  been  equal  to  the  increase  of  high  buildings. 

It  would  seem  to  be  the  duty  of  the  city  of  New  York  to  protect 
its  citizens  and  limit  the  height  of  buildings,  so  that  a  man  who 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


195 


either  cannot  or  does  not  improve  his  property  with  a  modern 
building  may  not  be  injured  by  his  neighbor  who  does. 

One  of  the  objections  to  limiting  the  height  of  buildings  is  that 
it  takes  away  the  right  of  a  man  to  do  what  he  pleases  with  his 
property.  This  is  not  well  founded.  Under  the  present  laws  an 
owner  is  restricted  greatly  as  to  improvements  (see  Building  Code 
and  Tenement  House  Laws  as  to  height,  size  of  court  yards,  size 
of  rooms,  sanitation,  etc.),  and  in  a  great  question  like  this  the 
general  welfare  of  the  city  must  first  be  considered  and  the  lesser 
rights  must  give  way  to  the  greater  rights. 

The  erection  of  high  buildings  should  be  stopped  on  the  ground 
of  danger  to  life  and  health,  and  because  these  buildings  interfere 
with  the  general  growth  of  the  city  along  healthy  lines. 

This  subject  has  evidently  been  very  seriously  considered  by  the 
fire  and  building  departments  of  the  city  of  New  York  and  by  the 
state  factory  inspection  departments  and  by  the  Board  of  Fire 
Underwriters,  because  many  stringent  and  special  rules  applicable 
to  high  buildings  have  been  made  regarding  fire-escapes,  staircases, 
halls,  quality  of  occupation  and  rates  of  insurance  on  structures 
and  contents,  and  it  is  well  known  that  many  papers  on  fire  danger 
caused  by  high  buildings  have  been  read  and  discussed. 


Statement  by  Mr.  William  H.  Browning,  President  Brown- 
ing, King  &  Co.,  September  25,  1913 

I  do  not  think  any  one  who  has  seriously  considered  the  welfare 
of  the  city  doubts  that  the  height  of  the  buildings  should  be  limited. 
The  points  of  issue  are,  how  low  shall  this  limitation  be  made,  and 
shall  it  be  the  same  all  over  the  city  without  regard  to  the  uses  to 
which  the  buildings  are  put,  and  the  width  of  the  streets  or  squares 
they  front  on.  And  should  there  be  some  charge  or  tax  on  existing 
buildings  already  erected  above  the  agreed-upon  height. 

Argument  for  flat  height  limitation 

Personally,  I  think  a  limitation  of  8  stories  would  be  as  high  as 
we  should  allow,  for  if  the  whole  city  was  built  up  to  that  height  it 
would  be  livable.  If  it  was  built  to  12  stories  it  would  be  unlivable, 
and  we  ought  to  consider  the  future  possibility  of  this.  The  propo- 
sition would  be  much  simpler  to  make  a  general  restriction  covering 
the  entire  city  to  that  height  rather  than  to  allow  certain  sections  to 
build  higher.  A  building  of  12  stories  on  Canal  Street  might  not  be 
as  objectionable  as  a  building  of  4  stories  on  Nassau  Street,  but  the 
12-story  building  may  extend  back  to  a  narrow  street  injuring  a 
neighboring  property  that  could  not  be  similarly  improved.  While 
personally  I  would  much  prefer  a  restriction  that  was  governed  by 
the  width  of  the  street  on  which  the  property  happened  to  face, 
looking  at  the  proposition  unselfishly,  I  can  see  that  such  a  restriction 


196 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


would  benefit  a  few  people  to  the  injury  of  a  much  larger  number 
and  also  greatly  complicate  its  application. 

The  assessed  value  of  the  city  as  a  whole  would  not  be  injured 
by  such  a  restriction,  but  values  would  in  time  be  more  evenly  dis- 
tributed. Unwise  or  unduly  severe  laws  regulating  manufacture 
would  in  time  tend  to  drive  it  out  of  the  city  and  injure  values,  but 
a  restriction  in  height  would  not. 

Tax  on  buildings  in  excess  of  prescribed  height 

Now  supposing  the  height  be  fixed,  I  cannot  see  any  great  injus- 
tice in  a  small  tax  on  existing  buildings  already  erected  higher  than 
the  agreed-upon  height.  It  should  not  be  by  any  means  confiscatory, 
but  it  should  be  a  tax  proportioned  according  to  the  rentable  space 
they  contain  above  the  agreed-upon  height  to  that  below  in  the  form 
of  a  certain  percentage  added  to  the  assessed  value  of  the  building.  I 
think  it  can  be  shown  that  in  addition  to  the  obstruction  of  light  and 
air,  these  excessively  high  buildings  cost  the  people  more  in  their 
demands  on  the  public  service  that  the  people  pay  for  than  they  ren- 
der in  return  by  taxes  on  their  assessed  valuation. 

They  have  burst  many  sewers  with  the  high  pressure  from  their 
mains.  They  have  forced  the  city  to  install  a  high-pressure  system 
as  a  preventative  against  fire.  It  surely  costs  more  to  provide  ser- 
vice for  say  10,000  housed  in  one  building  than  it  does  say  for  500, 
and  the  building  housing  10,000  does  not  begin  to  pay  in  taxes  the 
amount  that  low  buildings  housing  a  like  number  would  if  spread 
out  over  four  or  five  lots. 

They  have  been  quite  largely  erected  for  the  sake  of  advertising, 
and  if  the  committee  passes  a  resolution  restricting  the  height  of 
buildings,  as  it  seems  they  surely  will  do,  they  prevent  neighboring 
property  from  building  up  in  a  like  manner,  consequently  assuring 
to  the  owner  of  the  present  high  building  an  advertisement  for  which 
he  ought  to  be  willing  to  give  something  to  the  public  in  return. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Arnold  W.  Brunner,  Chairman  Fifth 
Avenue  Commission,  June  19,  191 3 

Fifth  Avenue 

The  Fifth  Avenue  Commission,  of  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be 
chairman,  has  devoted  much  time  and  thought  to  its  endeavors  to 
suggest  measures  to  save  Fifth  Avenue  from  ruin. 

In  our  preliminary  report,  which  was  submitted  to  the  Hon. 
George  McAncny,  President  of  the  Borough  of  Manhattan,  in 
March,  1912,  we  made  numerous  suggestions,  but  the  principal  rec- 
ommendation was  a  proposed  limitation  of  the  height  of  buildings, 
as  this  seemed  to  us  by  far  the  most  important  step  to  be  taken. 

We  believe  that  a  limitation  of  the  height  of  the  abutting  build- 
ings would  prevent  Fifth  Avenue  from  becoming  a  canyon,  as  it 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


197 


were,  and  we  presented  drawings  indicating  the  difference  in  ex- 
pression of  the  old  Fifth  Avenue  with  the  new  conditions,  show- 
ing how  the  continued  erection  of  high  buildings  on  both  sides  of 
the  street  would  be  clearly  disastrous.  We  selected  for  comparison 
the  Rue  de  La  Paix,  of  Paris,  as  it  was  not  one  of  the  Grands 
Boulevards,  but  a  noted  shopping  street  familiar  to  every  one.  It 
is  bright  and  sunny  and  might  well  be  taken  as  a  successful  model. 
We  suggested  that  the  maximum  height  of  cornice  be  placed  at  125 
feet  above  the  curb,  with  an  allowance  of  two  extra  stories  in  a 
mansard,  and  this  regulation  was  to  apply  to  all  buildings  on  side 
streets  within  such  distance  east  and  west  of  Fifth  Avenue  as  might 
on  further  investigation  be  found  to  be  just  and  adequate. 

Our  report  states  that  "  while  this  may  seem  to  be  too  slight 
a  restriction  of  height,  yet  in  view  of  the  situation  as  it  exists  it 
is  regarded  as  a  satisfactory  and  practical  compromise  between  what 
would  be  absolutely  desirable  and  what  relatively  seems  fair  and 
judicious  for  the  interests  of  the  property  owners  and  of  the  city. 
.  .  .  In  our  opinion,  the  plan  proposed  is  justified,  not  as  a  mat- 
ter having  to  do  with  esthetic  considerations,  but  as  a  business 
measure,  favorably  affecting  the  value  of  land  abutting  on  Fifth 
Avenue  and  adjacent  to  it  for  the  ultimate  benefit  of  the  private 
owners,  and  favorably  affecting  as  well  the  interests  of  the  city  by 
preserving  and  increasing  the  taxable  value  of  property  for  the 
public  revenues." 

The  validity  of  legislation  affecting  the  height  of  buildings  has 
been  questioned  :  but  Boston  has  solved  this  problem,  and  the  highest 
court  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts  has  confirmed  its  right  to  set 
a  limit  of  height — in  fact,  different  limits  in  different  sections  of 
the  city. 

Congestion 

The  increased  congestion  of  our  streets  has  reached  a  point  when 
some  action  must  be  taken.  It  seems  obvious  that  the  heights  of 
buildings  should  be  proportioned  to  the  width  of  the  streets  on 
which  they  are  built.  The  roadways  will  accommodate  a  certain 
amount  of  traffic  and  the  sidewalks  will  take  care  of  a  certain  num- 
ber of  pedestrians,  but  as  the  population  of  the  abutting  buildings 
becomes  greater  the  streets  are  inadequate.  Mr.  McAneny  has  done 
whatever  was  possible  to  increase  the  capacity  of  the  streets  by 
removing  the  illegal  projections,  but  there  are  no  more  projections 
to  be  removed  and  the  streets  cannot  be  widened,  but  the  height  of 
the  buildings  can  be  restrained. 

Height  limit  a  benefit  to  real  estate  values 

We  are  told  that  the  owner  of  a  piece  of  property  should  not 
have  his  rights  abridged,  but  his  neighbors  have  rights  and  the  pub- 
lic has  rights.  We  believe  that  the  good  of  the  entire  city  is  more 
important  than  the  desires  of  the  individual.    We  believe  that  a 


198 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


reasonable  limitation  of  the  height  of  buildings  would  be  in  the 
interest  of  real  estate  investors.  Some  real  estate  speculators  may 
object,  but  the  investor  is  of  more  importance. 

After  conferences  with  many  owners  of  real  estate  it  is  gratify- 
ing to  find  that  they  would  welcome  a  law  limiting  the  height  of 
buildings.  It  would  steady  the  value  of  real  estate,  make  it  a  more 
permanent  investment  and  less  of  a  speculation. 

From  an  esthetic  point  of  view  the  advantage  is  obvious.  Bright, 
sunny  streets  are  desirable  and  necessary.  The  Nassau  Street  type 
is  highly  undesirable.  Sky-scrapers  themselves  may  be  beautiful  and 
not  work  a  hardship  to  their  neighbors  if  they  are  sufficiently  well 
distributed  and  far  enough  apart,  but  it  seems  difficult  to  formu- 
late a  law  that  will  permit  sky-scrapers  that  will  be  equitable  to  all. 

When  property  is  restricted  in  a  sensible  manner  it  becomes 
more  valuable  and  the  remarkable  increase  of  population  of  certain 
German  cities,  where  not  only  the  height  of  buildings  but  their  archi- 
tectural character,  quality  and  proportion  of  ground  covered  are 
absolutely  regulated,  prove  that  restrictions  of  this  kind  do  not  dis- 
courage building,  but  on  the  contrary  stimulate  it. 

We  believe  that  the  city  must  preserve  its  principal  thorough- 
fares from  mistaken  or  selfish  activities  of  individuals,  and  I 
strongly  urge  your  Commission  to  recommend  legislation  limiting  the 
height  of  buildings. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Irving  T.  Bush,  President  Bush  Terminal 
Company,  June  26,  1913 

Location  of  industries 

Mr.  Bush  said  that  the  labor  market  controlled  the  location  of 
industries  only  in  certain  cases.  He  cited  the  shirt-waist  industry 
as  an  instance  of  an  industry  being  located  with  reference  to  the 
labor  supply.  Mr.  Bush  thought  that  shipping  facilities  controlled 
the  location  of  industry  to  a  greater  extent,  on  the  whole,  than  the 
labor  market.  The  cost  of  carrying  freight  to  and  from  the  railway 
is  a  very  important  consideration  in  the  location  of  factories.  Labor 
can  be  supplied  anywhere  in  Manhattan  or  Brooklyn,  but  shipping 
facilities  cannot.  After  the  industry  has  been  established  a  year 
or  two  it  draws  its  labor  supply  from  within  a  radius  of  about  a 
mile. 

It  is  impossible  for  the  city  to  lay  railway  tracks  to  afford  ship- 
ping facilities  for  factories  in  all  districts.  The  area  that  can  be 
opened  up  by  the  laying  of  railway  tracks  for  factory  purposes  is 
limited,  and  the  tracks  that  are  laid  down  should  be  planned  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  utilize  space  to  its  maximum  advantage. 

The  Bush  Terminal  Buildings  at  their  widest  part  are  only  75 
feet.  They  vary  in  height  from  6  to  8  stories.  The  8-story  building 
has  a  210-foot  court.  Some  of  the  stories  are  14  feet  in  height; 
others  12J/2  feet.    A  space  of  55  feet  is  left  between  the  buildings. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


199 


In  the  way  of  fire  protection,  these  buildings  possess  fire  walls, 
sprinkling  apparatus  and  a  supply  of  city  and  salt  water.  The  fire 
risk  has  been  reduced  to  a  minimum.  A  space  of  55  feet  in  width 
would  be  sufficient  for  the  purpose  of  lighting  buildings  75  feet  in 
width  and  8  stories  high.  Buildings  with  a  width  of  75  feet  are 
very  desirable  for  most  factory  purposes.  Buildings  of  a  narrower 
width  than  this  increase  the  cost  per  square  foot  area. 

The  city's  competitive  position  with  other  cities  is  greatly  im- 
proved by  reducing  the  cost  per  square  foot  of  its  industrial  area. 

Height  fixed  by  contributory  vacant  area 

Mr.  Bush  said  that  the  space  devoted  to  streets  and  courts  should 
be  very  carefully  considered  in  limiting  the  height  of  buildings. 
Ordinary  avenues  in  Brooklyn  are  80  feet  in  width.  Streets  of  this 
width  would  support  12-story  buildings.  In  the  Bush  Terminal 
area  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  limit  buildings  at  a  lesser  height  than 
12  stories.  He  said  that  160  to  170  cubic  feet  of  building  space 
would  be  about  proper  for  every  square  foot  of  vacant  area  con- 
tributory to  the  building. 

Horizontal  exits 

The  Bush  Terminal  factories  are  divided  every  few  hundred  feet 
by  double  fire  walls  across  the  building  and  from  cellar  to  roof. 
Between  these  double  fire  walls  are  the  corridors  and  stairs. 


Statement  by  Mr.  F.  E.  Cabot,  Secretary  Board  of  Fire 
Underwriters,  Boston,  Mass.,  October  3,  1913 

Mr.  Cabot  stated  that  he  was  not  aware  that  there  existed  any 
data  for  calculating  the  comparative  fire  losses  in  the  city  of  Boston 
before  and  after  the  enactment  of  the  height  limit.  There  are  only 
two  or  three  buildings  in  the  city  which  exceed  the  heights  set  down 
in  the  present  law.  Up  to  the  present  time  these  have  not  been 
affected  by  fire. 

He  also  stated  that  fire  cannot  be  fought  by  the  portable  ap- 
paratus used  by  fire  departments  at  a  greater  height  than  125  feet. 
Standpipes,  where  properly  constructed  and  used  by  the  fire  depart- 
ment, probably  add  to  the  protection  of  a  building.  When  only 
used  by  the  occupants  of  the  building,  they  do  not  materially  add 
to  its  protection.  In  most  cases  the  occupants  of  a  building  are  not 
trained  to  use  a  hose. 

Automatic  sprinklers  with  an  adequate  water  supply  are  the 
surest  means  of  extinguishing  fire  under  any  conditions,  except 
that  of  explosion.  All  mercantile  or  loft  buildings  over  100  feet  in 
height  should  be  equipped  with  automatic  sprinklers  and  supplied 
with  an  adequate  amount  of  water,  according  to  the  rules  now 
accepted  in  most  of  the  large  cities  of  the  country.    All  loft  build- 


200 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


ings  more  than  6  stories  in  height,  or  having  more  than  8000  square 
feet  of  area  on  any  floor,  not  broken  by  fire  walls,  should  be  equipped 
with  automatic  sprinklers. 


Statement   by   Mr.   Samuel  Carr,   Trustee  Ames  Estate, 
Boston,  Mass.,  October  3,  1913 

Mr.  Carr  said  that  on  the  whole  he  thought  well  of  the  height 
limits  in  Boston.  However,  he  was  very  glad  that  the  Ames  Estate, 
which  he  represented  as  trustee,  owned  the  highest  building  in 
Boston,  the  Ames  Building,  189  feet  high.  The  offices  on  the 
higher  floors  in  this  building  rent  more  easily  than  those  on  the 
lower  floors.  If  adjoining  buildings  were  erected  to  an  equal  height 
his  building  would  lose  this  advantage.  He  did  not  know  how  the 
height  limit  in  Boston  could  be  improved  upon.  He  only  knew  of 
three  buildings  in  Boston  that  were  over  125  feet  in  height:  the 
Ames  Building,  the  Fiske  Building  and  the  Exchange  Building, 
although  the  Massachusetts  Life  Insurance  Building  on  State  Street, 
built  a  short  time  before  the  Ames  Building  and  previous  to  the 
height  regulation,  may  possibly  exceed  125  feet  in  height. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Frank  R.  Chambers,  Representing  the 
Industrial  Committee  of  the  Merchants 
Association,  June  12,  1913 

Enclosed  stairways 

Mr.  Chambers  said  that  the  fire  hazard  would  be  greatly  reduced 
by  requiring  that  all  factory  and  loft  buildings  should  be  provided 
with  enclosed  stairways  and  openings.  A  requirement  that  all  stair- 
ways be  made  fireproof  would  not  only  work  a  hardship  to  property 
owners,  but  is  unnecessary  if  the  stairways  are  boxed  or  enclosed 
with  a  fire-resisting  material.  As  showing  that  such  work  is  not 
excessively  costly,  he  submitted  the  following  bids  from  a  company 
for  the  installation  of  stairway  enclosures  in  an  old  building: 

"  We  herewith  submit  our  estimate  to  furnish  material  and  labor  to  make 
the  following  improvements: 

"  1.  Box  stairways  from  basement  to  top  floor,  inclusive,  with  i-inch 
boarding  and  self-closing  doors,  for  the  sum  of  $60  per  floor. 

"  2.  Enclose  stair  as  above  and  cover  inside  and  outside  of  partitions 
with  heavy  metal  for  the  sum  of  $100  per  floor. 

"3.  Enclose  stairway  from  basement  to  roof,  with  angle-iron  frame  and 
terra-cotta  block,  with  self-closing  fireproof  doors,  for  the  sum  of  $225  per 
floor. 

"We  propose  doing  the  above  work  in  accordance  with  the  requirements 
of  the  Building  Department  and  the  New  York  Fire  Insurance  Exchange  and 
subject  to  their  approval  on  completion." 

Mr.  Chambers  expressed  the  opinion  that  for  the  ordinary  four 
or  five  story  building,  a  wooden  box  stair  enclosure  covered  with 
heavy  metal,  as  per  item  2  in  the  foregoing  bid,  would  be  sufficient; 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


201 


also  that  such  enclosure  should  be  required  even  in  buildings 
equipped  with  automatic  sprinklers  because  the  efficiency  of  auto- 
matic sprinklers  is  greatly  reduced  by  open  well  holes  and  elevator 
shafts,  as  these  lead  off  the  heat  from  the  room  on  fire  and  retard 
the  opening  of  the  sprinklers,  thus  permitting  a  greater  spread  of 
the  fire  before  the  sprinklers  operate. 

Automatic  sprinklers 

Mr.  Chambers  believed  that  every  building  used  as  a  factory, 
warehouse  or  shop  should  be  equipped  with  sprinklers,  especially 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  on  the  completion  of  the  new  Catskill  water 
supply  the  city  mains  will  provide  a  pressure  sufficient  to  operate 
sprinklers  independent  of  gravity  or  pressure  tanks  as  now  required 
up  to  a  height  of  all  except  tallest  office  buildings.  The  cost  of  such 
installation  would  thereby  be  greatly  reduced  and  would  be  returned 
to  the  owners  in  a  comparatively  short  time  in  the  reduction  of 
insurance  rates. 

From  an  underwriting  standpoint  Mr.  Chambers  said  that  a 
non-fireproof  building  equipped  with  automatic  sprinklers  is  a  better 
risk  than  a  so-called  fireproof  structure  filled  with  inflammable 
material.  As  proof  of  this  insurance  companies  are  writing 
sprinklered  risks  at  extremely  low  rates ;  and  a  general  use  of  auto- 
matic sprinklers  even  in  small  shops,  the  ground  floor  and  basement 
of  which  are  used  for  business  and  the  upper  floors  for  dwellings, 
would  practically  eliminate  what  is  known  to  underwriters  as  the 
"  conflagration  hazard."  It  is  highly  important  that  the  city  authori- 
ties take  this  feature  of  municipal  development  into  their  plans  for 
water  distribution  in  the  future. 


Statement  by  Mr.  J.  Randolph  Coolidge,  Jr.,  President  Boston 
Society  of  Architects,  October  3,  1913 

Height  of  buildings  in  Paris 

Paris  with  a  height  limit  of  80  feet  is  more  densely  built  up  than 
Manhattan.  Most  of  the  buildings  in  Paris  are  up  to  the  maximum 
limit.  Buildings  of  the  capacity  allowed  by  law  in  Paris  house  as 
large  a  population  as  the  streets  can  care  for.  Owners  in  Paris 
are  finding  it  profitable  to  replace  old  buildings  with  new  ones  even 
though  they  cannot  be  reerected  to  a  greater  height. 

Boston  height  limits 

Mr.  Coolidge  said  that  the  height  limit  in  Boston  should  be 
permanent.  Less  than  half  of  the  buildings  in  District  A  (Boston) 
are  erected  to  the  maximum  height  allowed  by  law.  The  principal 
down-town  streets,  which  are  already  overcrowded,  will  prooably 
have  to  be  arcaded  when  all  buildings  are  erected  to  the  maximum 
height  (125  feet).  The  limit  in  Boston  is  too  high  for  residences; 
it  might  be  all  right,  however,  for  offices. 


202  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

The  practice  of  basing  the  height  of  buildings  on  the  widest  abut- 
ting street  seriously  affects  the  lower  buildings  on  the  opposite  side 
of  the  narrower  street,  and  sometimes  causes  a  great  loss  of  sun- 
light in  such  narrower  streets. 

Districting 

A  height  limit  restricts  the  maximum  land  values,  and  stimu- 
lates extensive  rather  than  intensive  development  of  real  estate. 
Height  limitation  should  be  districted.  Districting  should  be  adopted 
in  order  to  preserve  residential  districts.  Brookline  is  at  present 
considering  three  classes  of  streets :  urban,  suburban  and  rural.  The 
height  limit  on  the  first  is  80  feet.  He  hoped  to  see  the  height  on 
the  second  restricted  to  60  feet  and  on  the  third  to  40  feet.  These 
height  limits  will  preserve  the  present  character  of  each  neighbor- 
hood and  make  its  growth  steady  and  rational. 

Building  lines 

Mr.  Coolidge  said  that  building  lines  requiring  a  set-back  of  not 
over  40  feet  may  be  laid  down  in  Massachusetts  towns  and  cities. 
These  are  usually  laid  down  long  before  abutters  desire  to  build  out 
to  the  street  line  and  consequently  cost  the  city  very  little  money. 
They  greatly  improve  the  appearance  of  the  highways,  besides  mak- 
ing it  easy  to  widen  the  streets  to  accommodate  increasing  traffic. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Richard  Deeves,  of  Richard  Deeves  &  Son, 
Inc.,  Representing  the  New  York  Board  of  Trade 
and  Transportation,  September  23,  19 13 

I  am  fully  convinced  as  a  builder,  a  real  estate  owner  and  as  a 
citizen  that  the  interests  and  esthetics  of  this  great  city  would  be 
best  conserved  by  the  limitation  of  the  heights  of  buildings  to  12 
stories. 

Different  interests,  chiefly  for  advertising,  are  erecting  mon- 
strosities in  the  shape  of  very  tall  buildings,  and  other  people  are 
erecting  manufacturing  buildings  of  such  a  height  that  they  are  a 
menace  to  the  working  people,  and  glutting  the  streets  with  trucks 
so  that  the  streets  are  hourly  congested. 

As  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Trade  and  Transportation  and  as 
one  of  the  committee  having  Mr.  Simon  Stern  for  the  chairman  fif- 
teen years  past,  our  committee  brought  in  their  report  virtually 
prohibiting  buildings  over  12  stories  in  height. 

We  trust  before  any  more  monstrosities  are  built  your  Commis- 
sion wifl  restrict  the  heights  of  buildings  in  this  city  to  a  reasonable 
limit. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


203 


Statement  by  Mr.  Robert  W.  De  Forest,  President  Charity 
Organization  Society,  Ex-President  Municipal 
Art  Commission,  June  30,  1913 

Height  of  buildings  should  be  limited 

I  am  deeply  interested  in  the  subject  of  limiting  the  height  of 
buildings  in  New  York.  I  think  the  future  welfare  of  the  city,  from 
many  points  of  view,  depends  upon  adopting  limitations  of  height. 
It  should  have  been  done  long  ago.  It  is  too  late  to  do  it  now, 
probably,  in  lower  Manhattan.  It  is  not  too  late  to  do  it  in  other 
sections. 

Under  the  Tenement  House  Law  of  1901  limitations  have  been 
placed  upon  the  height  of  all  tenements,  these  limitations  in  the 
case  of  fireproof  tenements  being  based  on  iy2  times  the  width  of 
the  street  on  which  they  are  built  and  in  the  case  of  non-fireproof 
tenements,  so-called,  being  6  stories.  So  far  as  I  am  aware  this  limi- 
tation has  worked  no  hardship  on  property  interests,  and  if  it  has, 
these  hardships  are  far  more  than  offset  by  thus  safeguarding  liv- 
ing conditions. 

Streets  not  sufficiently  wide  for  high  buildings 

When  our  city  was  laid  out  and  its  width  of  streets  and  size  of 
sewers  were  determined,  the  power  elevator  had  not  been  invented. 
These  streets  were  laid  out,  as  had  been  the  case  in  all  cities  at  home 
and  abroad,  in  reference  to  buildings  the  height  of  which  had  the 
natural  limitation  of  human  endurance  in  walking  up  and  down 
stairs.  Four-story  buildings  were  the  exception,  and  five  or  prob- 
ably six  story  buildings,  the  extreme  limit  of  height.  Consequently 
our  streets  and  sewers  were  not  designed  for  buildings  of  greater 
height,  nor  was  greater  height  conceived  of  as  a  future  possibility. 
The  power  elevator  has  absolutely  revolutionized  these  limitations 
and  made  expansion  upward  quite  as  practicable  as  extension 
laterally. 

To  meet  these  new  conditions  we  must  do  one  of  two  things — 
either  reconstruct  our  city  plan  and  widen  our  streets  to  adapt  them 
to  elevator-served  buildings  (which  is  impossible)  or  limit  the 
height  of  buildings,  with  some  regard  to  the  width  of  streets  (which 
is  still  possible  outside  of  lower  Manhattan). 

Districting 

If  it  were  possible  to  begin  to  build  New  York  from  the  ground 
up,  it  would  be  desirable  to  have  the  same  regulations  of  height 
apply  universally.  This  method  is  not  possible.  The  different  parts 
of  the  city  are  being  used  for  different  purposes.  Even  in  the  resi- 
dential parts  of  the  city  social  needs  are  so  varied  in  different  sec- 
tions as  to  produce  in  some  five  or  six  story  dwellings  and  in  others 
two  or  three  story  dwellings. 

Practically,  in  limiting  height,  we  must  recognize  existing  condi- 


204 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


tions,  and  we  must  divide  the  city  into  zones  or  districts,  which 
might  vary  much  in  shape  and  area,  and  in  which  the  limitations  of 
height  might  be  different.  Hence,  bearing  in  mind  the  proposition 
that  our  streets  are  what  they  are,  the  greatest  limitation  of  height 
practically  possible  should  be  secured.  Nor  should  the  limitations  of 
height  in  such  zones  be  necessarily  merely  proportionate  to  the  width 
of  the  streets.  Other  open  spaces  at  the  rear  or  the  sides  should  be 
considered.  Indeed,  open  space  around  the  buildings,  be  it  street 
or  court  or  anything  else — that  is,  space  which  will  give  light  and 
air  to  the  different  stories  of  the  building — is  the  true  basis  of  height 
regulation;  and  there  need  be  no  valid  objection  to  the  tower  build- 
ing if  only  sufficient  open  space  all  around  it  be  perpetually  main- 
tained. And  the  necessity  of  maintaining  open  space,  if  legal  re- 
quirements to  this  effect  exist,  will  put  a  natural  limit  on  the  height 
of  buildings. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Edward  I.  Devlin,  Superintendent  New 
York  Life  Insurance  Co.,  June  19,  19 13 

Argument  for  height  limitations 

I  am  in  thorough  accord  with  the  movement  for  restriction  of 
the  height  of  buildings.  It  seems  to  me  that  no  more  convincing 
argument  should  be  necessary  than  existing  conditions  on  the  lower 
end  of  Manhattan  Island  and  in  the  active  sections  of  Fifth  Avenue. 
In  the  former  zone  the  streets  are  fast  becoming  veritable  canyons, 
excluding  sunlight  and  fresh  air,  which  are  so  necessary  to  health. 
On  Fifth  Avenue  the  outpouring  of  people  engaged  in  the  various 
industries  housed  in  the  adjoining  streets  is  threatening  to  injure 
seriously  the  finest  thoroughfare  in  our  great  city. 

Fire  hazard  of  high  buildings 

Apart  from  these  considerations  of  public  health  and  conveni- 
ence, we  know  from  experience  that  the  so-called  sky-scrapers  are 
not  really  fireproof  in  case  of  serious  conflagration.  The  insurance 
companies  also  recognize  the  additional  hazard  by  increasing  their 
rates  with  progressive  stories.  The  protection  of  human  life  from 
the  fire  hazard  appeals  strongly  for  limitation  of  height. 

Districting 

In  my  judgment  it  is  desirable  to  map  out  a  system  of  zones  on 
the  general  lines  used  with  success  in  some  of  the  foreign  cities. 
While  this  may  not  accomplish  results  rapidly,  it  will  constantly 
tend  in  the  right  direction  and  in  time  we  will  have  buildings  con- 
forming to  the  neighborhood  uses  and  interests.  I  further  believe 
in  restriction  based  on  the  width  of  the  street  with  modifications, 
perhaps,  in  relation  to  the  portion  of  the  plot  occupied. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


205 


Height  limit  a  benefit  to  real  estate  values 

Any  general  measure  of  restriction  will  naturally  result  in  some 
readjustment  of  values.  It  may  in  particular  instances  work  hard- 
ship, but  I  believe  that,  with  the  wider  use  of  land,  benefit  to  the 
many  will  come  from  a  broader  distribution  of  values.  We  can 
hope  for  no  reform  worth  the  while  without  some  attending  incon- 
venience and  possible  injury,  but  where  the  public  safety,  health 
and  comfort  are  so  much  concerned  there  should  no  longer  be  hesi- 
tation. Indeed  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  reasonable  regulation  was 
not  made  effective  some  years  ago,  thus  avoiding  results  which  may 
no  longer  be  eradicated,  but  can  only  be  relieved  at  this  late  day. 


Statement  by  Miss  Emily  W.  Dinwiddie,  Representing  the 
Neighborhood  Workers  Association  of  New  York  (Chair- 
man of  Tenement  House  Committee),  Also  the  Agent 
for  the  Trinity  Corporation,  June  30,  191 3 

Congestion 

Miss  Dinwiddie  said  that  further  restriction  of  the  height  of 
buildings  is  urgently  needed.  The  existing  limitation  of  the  height 
of  new  tenement  buildings  to  1^  times  the  width  of  the  widest 
street  on  which  they  stand  is  far  from  an  ideal  standard.  The 
requirement  that  tenements  seven  stories  high  or  more  must  be 
fireproof,  having  the  practical  effect  of  limiting  most  new  buildings 
of  this  character  to  six  stories,  still  allows  a  height  that  is  most 
undesirable  and  that  should  not  be  permitted  in  the  outlying  dis- 
tricts. Inadequate  regulation  up  to  the  present  time  has  allowed 
the  growth  of  blocks  in  the  city  with  a  population  of  3000  and  more 
persons  to  the  single  block.  Such  a  state  of  affairs  is  intolerable 
and  ought  to  be  prevented  in  the  newer  areas.  Where  there  is  so 
great  a  density  of  population  a  park  and  playground  are  almost 
needed  for  each  block.  Much  juvenile  delinquency  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  children  have  no  place  for  play. 

Miss  Dinwiddie  said  that  it  would  not  be  possible  for  certain 
streets  on  the  East  Side  to  hold  all  the  people  living  in  the  adjoining 
buildings  if  they  wished  to  come  out  at  the  same  time.  Street  con- 
gestion delays  the  firemen  in  reaching  fires  and  the  evils  of  traffic 
congestion  are  too  familiar  to  need  comment. 

Miss  Dinwiddie  expressed  herself  as  strongly  in  favor  of  the 
district  system  of  regulating  the  height  of  buildings. 

She  thought  race  cohesiveness  an  important  factor  in  producing 
congestion  of  the  sections  in  which  immigrants  live,  the  Italians 
tending  to  crowd  into  the  Italian  quarter,  the  newly  arrived  Russian 
Jews  into  the  Jewish  districts,  and  so  on.  She  cited  a  case  of 
Italian  laborers  working  in  the  suburban  part  of  Philadelphia  where 
rents  are  cheap,  but  living  in  crowded  tenements  in  the  center  of 
the  city  because  their  countrymen  were  there.    She  called  attention 


206 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


to  the  fact  that  existing  labor  conditions  necessitate  the  living  of 
many  working  people  near  their  places  of  employment.  She  thought 
that  proper  distribution  of  immigrants  and  removal  of  factories 
from  congested  areas  would  relieve  some  existing  evils.  She  said 
that  temporary  congestion  in  a  given  locality  was  brought  about  at 
times  by  improvements  involving  dishousing.  For  example,  a  large 
percentage  of  the  families  which  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  Com- 
pany dislodged  in  building  its  terminal  on  33d  Street  moved  into 
houses  in  the  immediate  neighborhood,  thus  increasing  overcrowd- 
ing in  that  part  of  the  city.  Cheap,  adequate  rapid  transit,  how- 
ever greatly  needed,  Miss  Dinwiddie  thought,  would  not  alone  solve 
the  city's  congestion  problems. 


Statement  by   Mr.   Edmund  Dwight,   President  Casualty 
Insurance  Co.,  July  10,  1913 

Elevators  as  means  of  exit 

In  considering  the  matter  of  elevator  service  in  buildings  of 
great  height,  attention  should  first  be  paid  to  the  matter  of  safety 
of  tenants.  There  is  nothing  in  the  record  of  elevators  in  very 
high  buildings  to  indicate  that  accidents  are  more  likely  to  occur 
in  the  elevators  of  such  buildings  than  in  the  elevators  of  lower 
buildings,  but  there  is  an  element  of  risk  in  such  buildings  which 
is  necessarily  related  to  the  elevator  service.  This  element  of  risk 
is  due  to  the  fact  that  in  high  buildings  the  tenants  on  all  of  the 
upper  floors  are  virtually  dependent  upon  the  elevators  as  a  primary 
means  of  exit  in  case  of  fire  or  in  case  of  any  condition  which 
might  produce  panic,  resulting  in  a  rush  to  escape. 

Irrespective  of  the  length  of  time  which  it  would  take  to  reach 
the  street  by  the  stairs  from  a  floor  above  a  twentieth  floor,  the 
stairs  in  a  fully  occupied  high  building  would  be  quickly  congested 
(even  if  the  stair  well  were  not  so  filled  with  smoke  as  to  render 
the  stairs  an  impracticable  means  of  exit),  and  dependence  would 
necessarily  have  to  be  upon  the  elevators  for  at  least  a  considerable 
percentage  of  tenants  and  for  all  who  were  in  any  way  infirm. 

Time  consumed  in  emptying  high  buildings 

There  is  at  least  one  high  building  in  New  York  which,  if  fully 
occupied,  would  require  more  than  a  half  hour  to  empty  its  occu- 
pants on  the  street  by  means  of  the  elevators. 

Elevr.tor  service  in  case  of  fire 

Well-organized  buildings  of  great  height  have  special  rules  for 
the  elevator  service  in  the  event  of  fire.  Under  such  circumstances 
the  elevators  would  run  free  from  schedule  under  the  direction  of 
the  superintendent,  discharging  their  passengers  at  a  floor  below 
the  fire.  From  such  floor  tenants  would  be  expected  to  proceed  by 
stairway  to  the  street. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


207 


Elevator  shafts  as  fire  flues 

Elevator  shafts  are  flues  admirably  designed  to  increase  draft 
and  to  carry  smoke  and  flame.  Even  in  shafts  in  which  there  is 
not  a  particle  of  wood  there  is  of  necessity  much  grease  or  other 
lubricants  upon  the  guides  and  on  the  hoisting  and  other  cables 
which  can  be  set  to  burning  if  fire  reaches  the  lower  part  of  the 
shaft.  Such  a  fire  might  of  itself  not  greatly  endanger  the  life  of 
tenants  above,  particularly  of  those  who  remained  in  closed  rooms, 
but  it  might  easily  produce  violent  panic  in  the  upper  floors.  I 
think  that  fire  or  an  alarm  of  fire  or  an  explosion  or  some  other 
violently  disturbing  cause  might  easily  produce  such  a  panic  and 
that  it  is  a  peril  to  be  constantly  apprehended  in  very  high  buildings. 

High  buildings  not  productive  of  efficiency  in  business 

Another  matter  in  connection  with  the  elevator  service  in  high 
buildings  which  is  connected  with  the  question  of  convenience  rather 
than  of  safety  is  the  great  loss  of  time  to  tenants  on  the  upper  floors. 
The  time  involved  in  reaching  say  a  thirtieth  floor  from  the  side- 
walk, and  involving  the  average  period  of  waiting  for  an  elevator, 
is  substantially  equal  to  that  which  is  involved  in  going  to  the  sub- 
way, waiting  for  an  express  train,  and  traveling  a  distance  of  at 
least  a  mile  thereon,  so  that  a  tenant  located  on  a  thirtieth  floor  or 
above  is  as  remote  from  customers  or  clients  in  other  buildings  in 
the  near  vicinity  of  his  office  as  if  he  had  moved  his  office  to  a  com- 
paratively distant  point  and  become  a  tenant  of  a  low  building. 

The  most  important  purpose  of  occupying  an  upper  floor  in  a 
very  high  building  must  be  the  getting  of  light  and  air.  This  can 
be  achieved  by  moving  out  of  the  congested  district  and,  in  the  mat- 
ter of  quickness  of  approach  by  a  tenant,  his  employees  and  his 
customers,  no  greater  time  would  need  to  be  involved. 

Inaccessibility  of  intermediate  floors  in  high  buildings 

This  matter  of  inaccessibility  and  inconvenience  becomes  very 
pronounced  at  certain  hours  of  the  day.  Elevators  are  unlike  sur- 
face cars  which  follow  each  other  on  the  same  tracks  in  a  con- 
tinuous stream.  Only  one  elevator  can  run  in  one  shaft ;  it  has  to 
complete  each  journey  and  return.  At  those  periods  of  the  day 
when  there  is  a  great  movement  in  one  direction,  elevators  in  very 
high  buildings  become  congested  and  passengers  are  compelled  to 
wait  on  upper  floors,  sometimes  permitting  one  or  two  or  more  cars 
to  pass  them  before  they  can  get  on  board.  The  tenants  located  at 
the  extreme  top  may  be  invariably  able  to  use  the  first  elevator 
which  comes.  Those  who  are  located  on  lower  floors  or  at  any  point 
near  the  middle  of  the  run  of  the  elevator  which  serves  their  floor 
must  constantly  be  subjected  to  great  inconvenience  in  this  respect. 
The  result  of  this  is  shown  in  the  demand  of  tenants  for  floors  at 
or  near  the  end  of  the  run  of  any  set  of  elevators ;  the  intermediate 
floors  being  regarded  as  undesirable. 


208 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Elevator  space  in  high  buildings  disproportionate  to  increased 
height 

Still  another  matter  which  must  affect  the  income  value  of  build- 
ings of  great  height  is  the  disproportionate  amount  of  space  which 
has  to  be  given  up  to  elevators.  The  number  of  elevators  made 
available  for  service  increases  in  a  greater  proportion  than  the  height 
of  the  building.  If  a  building  of  12  stories  requires  5  elevators,  a 
building  of  36  stories,  of  the  same  area,  could  not  be  served  with 
15  elevators,  but  would  require  at  least  20. 

Assuming  that  the  additional  15  elevators  serve  the  floors  above 
the  twelfth  floor,  it  will  be  observed  that  the  space  required  by  these 
additional  15  elevators  is  not  only  taken  from  the  24  upper  stories, 
but  is  also  taken  from  the  12  lower  stories,  including  the  ground 
floor.  Therefore,  in  order  to  provide  space  for  tenants  above  the 
twelfth  floor  there  must  be  a  sacrifice  of  room  on  each  lower  floor. 
This  becomes  particularly  important  as  to  the  grade  floor  itself,  the 
rental  value  of  which  must  be  regarded  as  approximately  six  times 
the  rental  value  of  space  in  the  floors  above  it.  It  is  conceivable 
that  a  building  could  be  built  of  such  area  and  of  such  height  that 
the  mere  requirements  of  the  elevator  service  would  of  itself  de- 
stroy any  possibility  of  income  on  the  entire  investment. 

Height  of  buildings  should  be  limited 

In  making  the  above  comments  I  have  confined  myself  to  ques- 
tions in  relation  to  the  matter  of  elevators  in  high  buildings,  and 
have  expressed  no  thoughts  regarding  high  buildings  from  any  other 
point  of  view.  I  desire  however  to  put  myself  on  record  as  believ- 
ing that  the  time  has  come  in  New  York  when  there  should  be  a 
most  rigid  limitation  of  the  height  of  buildings.  I  believe  that  it 
has  been  demonstrated  that  an  owner  of  a  plot  of  ground  who  builds 
a  high  building  thereon  is  robbing  other  owners  of  light  and  air  to 
which  they  are  equally  entitled,  and  is  robbing  every  person  on  the 
streets  of  light  and  air  to  which  such  persons  are  entitled.  I  be- 
lieve that  it  is  susceptible  of  demonstration  that  upon  the  whole 
there  is  neither  an  advantage  to  the  community  in  the  existence  of 
very  high  buildings  nor  an  advantage  to  the  tenants  on  the  upper 
floors  of  such  buildings  which  could  not  be  better  achieved  in  other 
ways.  I  believe  that  the  effect  of  very  high  buildings  will  ultimately 
be  destructive  of  real  estate  values  instead  of  beneficial  to  them 
and  that  they  will  be  a  failure  from  an  income  point  of  view  to  the 
owners,  and,  finally,  from  the  point  of  view  of  safety  both  of  their 
own  occupants  and  that  of  people  in  their  vicinity,  I  believe  that 
very  high  buildings  constitute  a  greatly  added  menace  and  peril  to 
the  community. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


209 


Statement  by  Mr.  Amory  Eliot,  Lawyer  and  Trustee,  Boston, 
Mass.,  October  3,  1913 

Height  limit  a  benefit  to  land  values 

Mr.  Eliot  said  that  the  height  limits  in  Boston  helped  the  city 
as  a  whole.  The  desire  of  any  owner  to  erect  higher  buildings  arose 
purely  from  selfish  motives  and  would  injure  the  city.  The  height 
limit  difTuses  land  values. 

Effect  of  height  limit  on  capital 

Mr.  Eliot  said  that  the  height  limit  had  had  no  effect  on  values 
in  District  A.  Buildings  could  be  erected  with  a  fair  return  even 
if  limited  to  a  height  of  125  feet.  Eleven  and  twelve  story  buildings 
can  be  operated  profitably  if  they  cover  a  sufficient  area.  The  average 
return  in  Boston  is  about  4  per  cent  net.  Some  buildings  produce 
more  than  this.  This  profit  makes  allowance  for  depreciation  and 
upkeep.  The  capital  value  of  fully  developed  real  estate  is  about 
25  times  the  net  return.  Mr.  Eliot  said  that  the  amount  that  should 
be  set  aside  for  the  amortization  of  a  steel  frame  building  was  un- 
certain because  the  experience  with  such  buildings  was  as  yet  insuf- 
ficient to  determine  the  extent  of  their  depreciation. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Lawrence  B.  Elliman,  Representing  the 
Real  Estate  Board  of  Brokers,  June  12,  1913 

Districting 

Mr.  Elliman  said  that  the  chief  trouble  with  the  zone  system  was 
in  the  possible  hardship  it  would  work  under  certain  conditions  a 
number  of  years  hence. 

Fifth  Avenue  limitations 

Mr.  Elliman  said  that  one  of  the  largest  builders  along  Fifth 
Avenue  said  that  a  number  of  people  agreed  with  him  in  wanting 
to  have  25  per  cent  of  the  area  of  buildings  along  Fifth  Avenue  left 
free  with  the  idea  that  20  per  cent  of  this  could  be  in  a  rear  yard 
and  the  other  5  per  cent  in  light  shafts,  etc.  This  20  per  cent  free 
area  at  the  rear  would  mean  that  there  would  be  40  feet  back  to  back 
between  buildings.  This  would  undoubtedly  increase  the  total  net 
rentability. 

The  limitation  of  the  heights  of  buildings  in  a  section  where 
values  have  been  established  because  of  the  fact  that  there  was  no 
limit  should  be  very  carefully  considered  before  a  limit  is  fixed. 
In  the  outlying  districts  a  limit  of  height  would  seem  to  me  to  be 
most  desirable  and  would  work  no  injustice,  but  in  the  Fifth  Ave- 
nue section  and  in  other  places  where  the  land  values  have  increased 
enormously  because  of  no  restriction  being  placed  on  them,  I  sin- 
cerely hope  that  your  Commission  will  act  very  cautiously  and  only 


2IO 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


after  a  very  careful  consideration  of  all  the  facts  which  have  been 
submitted,  as  I  personally  feel  that  while  from  an  artistic  standpoint 
and  perhaps  from  a  health  standpoint  a  limit  is  most  desirable,  it 
is  a  question  whether  it  is  a  just  action  on  the  part  of  the  govern- 
ment in  depriving  a  citizen  of  some  of  his  rights  without  due  process 
of  law. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Arthur  G.  Everett,  Building  Commissioner, 
Boston,  Mass.,  November  7,  1913 

Boston  height  limits 

What  may  have  been  learned  from  the  visit  of  your  Commis- 
sion to  Boston  is  that  there  is  little  if  any  expression  of  dissatisfac- 
tion with  the  conditions  resulting  from  the  limitation  of  heights 
of  buildings.  The  objections  raised  against  arbitrarily  limiting  the 
height  of  buildings  in  one  part  of  the  city  to  less  than  that  allowed 
in  the  business  section  seems  not  to  have  been  well  founded,  as  the 
opportunity  to  build  to  a  height  of  100  feet  in  the  district  generally 
limited  to  80  feet  has  seldom  been  availed  of,  showing,  it  seems  to 
me,  that  there  is  no  demand,  at  the  present  time  at  least,  for  build- 
ings exceeding  a  height  of  75  feet  allowable  in  "  second  class  " 
construction. 

I  am  not  aware  of  any  building  enterprise  which  has  been 
abandoned  because  of  the  restrictions  imposed  upon  the  height  of 
buildings  in  Boston,  nor  should  I  consider  any  such  case  as  weigh- 
ing against  the  enactment  of  regulations  intended  for  the  health  and 
safety  of  the  community. 

Height  of  parapet  walls 

If  as  one  reason  for  placing  a  limit  of  height  upon  buildings 
the  preservation  of  light,  air  and  sunshine  is  to  be  considered,  then, 
the  height  of  parapet  walls  should  also  be  limited  in  the  height  to 
which  they  may  extend  above  the  roof,  as  the  interference  with 
light,  air  and  sunshine  is  as  great  from  such  structures  as  if  the 
buildings  themselves  extended  to  the  top  of  such  walls. 

Traffic 

One  of  the  principal  considerations  in  determining  the  height 
of  buildings  should  be  the  capacity  of  the  street  upon  which  build- 
ings abut  to  provide  for  the  occupants  during  the  hours  when  most 
persons  are  going  to  or  leaving  the  buildings.  Another  matter  of 
serious  moment  is  the  possibility  of  emptying  the  building  itself  in 
case  of  emergency  or  during  regular  use  when  most  or  all  of  the 
occupants  arc  leaving. 

Exits 

Panic  conditions  cannot  be  provided  for,  but  reasonable  means 
of  egress  from  a  building  means  more  ample  provision  than  is 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


211 


generally  supposed,  and  to  adequately  provide  for  the  large  number 
of  persons  in  a  tall  building  would,  in  an  extreme  case,  mean  that 
the  lower  stories  should  be  almost  entirely  occupied  by  stairways. 

The  main  considerations  seem  to  me  to  be,  provisions  for  light, 
air  and  sunshine  and  adequate  provisions  for  the  travel  of  numbers 
of  persons. 


Statement  by  Mr.  William  Ewing,  Engineer,  Boston,  Mass., 

October  4,  1913 

Mr.  Ewing  said  that  a  set-back  did  not  permit  of  very  much  in- 
creased height  in  the  case  of  shallow  lots.  A  set-back  would  tend 
toward  the  erection  of  high  buildings  on  large  lots.  Some  com- 
petent authority  should  pass  upon  the  front  of  every  building  before 
it  is  erected. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Bruce  M.  Falconer,  Attorney  for  the 
Fifth  Avenue  Association,  June  19,  1913 

Fifth  Avenue 

There  is  probably  no  street  or  avenue  in  this  great  city  to  which 
the  question  of  height  limitation  is  of  as  much  importance  as  Fifth 
Avenue,  no  district  whose  interests  and  character  are  as  much 
affected  by  it  as  the  Fifth  Avenue  district.  It  is  now,  and  for  some 
years  to  come  will  be,  in  a  constant,  seething  turmoil  of  tearing 
down  and  rebuilding,  and  it  is  safe  to  say  that  a  few  years  from 
now,  with  perhaps  a  few  exceptional  houses,  the  busy  section  of 
Fifth  Avenue  will  be  composed  entirely  of  new  buildings. 

There  are  already  at  least  15  buildings  on  the  avenue  itself  that 
are  over  12  stories  in  height,  quite  a  number  of  them  being  of  the 
loft  variety.  Of  these  buildings  there  are  two  of  20  stories,  one  of 
19  stories,  seven  of  18  stories,  one  of  16,  three  of  15  and  one  of 
14  stories.  In  the  side  streets  adjacent  to  the  avenue  there  are  also 
a  large  number  of  tall  buildings.  The  records  of  the  bureau  of 
buildings  show  that  in  the  past  few  years  one-third  of  the  number 
of  fireproof  buildings  erected  in  Manhattan  were  within  that  sec- 
tion of  the  city  lying  between  14th  and  40th  Streets  and  one-fifth 
of  all  the  new  buildings  of  any  character  of  construction  were 
within  that  district.    The  same  proportion  holds  true  of  alterations. 

The  movement  to  restrict  the  height  of  buildings  on  Fifth  Ave- 
nue began  about  two  years  ago,  with  the  Fifth  Avenue  Association. 
In  the  winter  of  1911-1912  Borough  President  McAneny,  after 
consultation  with  the  President  of  the  Fifth  Avenue  Association, 
appointed  the  Fifth  Avenue  Commission,  a  body  of  seven  members, 
to  investigate  and  advise  upon  all  matters  concerning  the  improve- 
ment and  development  of  Fifth  Avenue.  The  President  of  the 
Fifth  Avenue  Association,  Mr.  Robert  Grier  Cooke,  was  appointed 
a  member  of  this  commission,  and  became  its  secretary.    In  March, 


212 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


191 2,  the  commission  submitted  a  report  to  the  Borough  President 
containing,  among  other  things,  the  recommendation  of  the  passage 
of  legislation  limiting  the  height  of  buildings  on  Fifth  Avenue  and 
within  a  prescribed  distance  east  and  west  to  125  feet,  with  two 
mansard  roof  stories.  In  May,  191 2,  the  Borough  President  intro- 
duced a  resolution  in  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment 
requesting  the  Board  of  Aldermen  to  consider  the  adoption  of  the 
legislation  recommended,  the  distance  east  and  wrest  being  specified 
as  100  feet  from  the  avenue.  The  resolution  was  referred  to  a 
special  committee.  Some  few  days  later  the  executive  committee 
of  the  Fifth  Avenue  Association  passed  a  resolution  approving  of 
the  proposed  legislation  and  recommending  that  the  prescribed  dis- 
tance east  and  west  of  the  avenue  be  changed  from  100  to  300  feet. 
On  March  6,  1913,  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment 
adopted  a  resolution  providing  for  the  appointment  of  the  present 
Commission  on  the  Height,  Size  and  Arrangement  of  Buildings. 

During  the  past  winter  letters  were  sent  by  the  Fifth  Avenue 
Association  to  owners  of  property  on  and  near  the  avenue  from 
Washington  Square  up  to  the  Nineties.  The  replies  received  indi- 
cated that  only  one  or  two  property  owners  opposed  the  movement, 
the  rest  of  those  replying  being  unanimously  in  favor  of  some 
height  restriction. 

Arguments  for  limitation 

There  are  many  arguments  which  have  been  and  can  be  adduced 
in  favor  of  a  general  limitation  upon  the  height  of  buildings,  some 
of  them  much  more  important  than  others,  and  there  are  in  addition 
certain  other  arguments  which  apply  specially  or  solely  to  Fifth 
Avenue  because  of  special  conditions  existing  there.  All  of  these 
arguments  save  one  have  more  or  less  direct  relation  to  the  public 
health,  safety,  comfort  or  convenience,  and  to  the  welfare  of  prop- 
erty owners  and  the  public  generally.  This  one  exception  relates 
to  the  argument  of  beauty  and  esthetic  taste,  which,  though  it  may 
have  little  or  no  weight  with  the  courts,  is  not  out  of  place  before 
a  commission  unhampered  by  precedent  and  closely  in  touch  with 
public  sentiment.  These  various  arguments  may  be  briefly  summed 
up  as  haying  relation  to  sunshine,  light,  air,  wind  currents,  fire, 
congestion  in  traffic  and  in  living  conditions,  the  prevention  of  a 
wider  area  of  improvements,  beauty,  the  loft-building  menace,  and 
the  unique  character  of  Fifth  Avenue. 

Sunshine  and  light 

Nothing  is  more  desirable  in  the  planning  of  the  future  of  the 
citv  than  to  see  to  it  that  as  much  sunshine  and  light  as  possible 
shall  fall  upon  the  streets  and  enter  the  windows  of  homes  and 
offices.  The  right  to  the  enjoyment  of  these  priceless  gifts  of  nature 
is  common  to  all  and  supposedly  inalienable.  Yet  there  are  streets 
and  parts  of  streets  in  the  lower  end  of  the  city  to  which  the  sun- 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


213 


shine  has  access  for  only  a  limited  period  during  the  day,  reminding 
those  who  have  traveled  of  conditions  as  they  exist  in  some  of  the 
deep  narrow  valleys  in  Switzerland.  The  Woolworth  Building 
cuts  off  the  sunshine  from  City  Hall  Park  during  a  large  part  of 
the  afternoon,  where  formerly  the  park  wras  bathed  in  sunshine, 
and  it  stands  there  like  a  great  mountain  against  the  sky.  The 
sky-scraper  has  turned  lower  Broadway,  Wall  Street,  Exchange 
Place,  William  Street,  Nassau,  Cedar,  Pine,  Liberty  and  other 
down-town  streets  into  what  resemble  hemmed-in  gorges,  dark, 
gloomy  and  cheerless.  Here  thousands  of  men  and  women  are 
working  day  after  day  in  rooms  that  have  never  been  and  never 
will  be  lighted  by  a  ray  of  sunshine,  while  other  thousands,  still 
worse  off,  spend  their  working  hours  in  rooms  where  even  on 
sunniest  summer  days  it  is  too  dark  to  work  without  the  continuous 
use  of  electric  light.  It  needs  no  oculist  to  tell  us  that  continuous 
daily  work  under  electric  light  is  injurious  to  the  eyes,  and  no 
physician  but  our  own  experience  and  feelings  to  tell  us  what  effect 
such  work  has  upon  the  nerves,  disposition  and  general  health  of 
those  who  are  subjected  to  these  abnormal  living  conditions. 

We  have  heard  much  in  this  country  and  city  about  the  high 
cost  of  living,  but  very  little  about  the  high  pressure  of  living.  We 
in  this  city,  especially,  are  living  under  tremendously  high  pressure. 
We  often  fail  to  realize  this  fact  until  we  go  away  for  a  vacation 
and  return  again,  and  at  such  times  during  the  first  few  days  and 
hours  of  our  return  many  of  us  are  probably  keenly  cognizant  of 
a  strong  sense  of  tension  and  pressure.  We  are  a  people  of  ex- 
tremists, we  want  the  finest,  the  fastest,  the  best  or  the  biggest  of 
everything,  as  the  case  may  be,  and  nothing  less  seems  to  satisfy 
us.  The  sky-scraper  has  greatly  increased  this  high  pressure, of 
living,  and  it  is  likewise  the  best  possible  example  of  the  American 
love  of  superlative  material  achievements  and  results.  But  while 
the  awe-struck  foreigner  gazes  up  at  the  sun-crowned  tower  of 
some  dazzling  monument  of  this  kind,  it  may  be  that  scores  of  men 
and  women  hemmed  in  on  the  lower  floors  of  the  same  buildings 
are  longing  for  a  glimpse  of  sunshine  or  daylight  and  some  other 
outlook  from  their  windows  than  that  of  a  near-by  blank  wall.  So 
it  is  that  we  Americans,  being  a  nation  of  star-gazers,  stumble 
sometimes  because  we  fail  to  see  the  things  at  our  feet. 

The  high  building  is  a  menace  to  health  in  other  ways.  Xot 
only  are  eyes  and  nerves  endangered,  but  communicable  diseases 
are  more  easily  fostered  in  the  dark  and  gloomy  conditions  which 
tall  buildings  tend  to  create.  The  Fifth  Avenue  Association  has 
in  its  possession  a  letter  from  a  physician,  who  is  also  a  representa- 
tive of  owners  of  property  on  the  avenue,  stating  that  high  build- 
ings by  shutting  out  light  and  sunshine  add  to  the  danger  of  tuber- 
culosis which  of  course  is  in  line  with  the  common  knowledge  we 
all  have  of  the  conditions  under  which  the  possibility  of  that  disease 
is  increased.    The  cleanliness  of  the  streets  in  their  relation  to 


214 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


health  is  also  affected  by  dark  conditions.  It  goes  without  saying 
that  on  streets  with  but  little  sunlight  conditions  are  far  worse  in 
winter  after  a  snow-fall  than  they  are  on  sunny  streets,  that  the 
snow  melts  less  quickly  and  increases  the  length  of  time  and  the 
amount  of  work  spent  in  cleaning,  and  that  heaps  of  snow  soon 
become  masses  of  dirt,  mud  and  refuse  which  increase  materially 
the  amount  of  flying  dust. 

In  guarding  the  future  of  Fifth  Avenue  as  well  as  that  of  the 
entire  city,  all  these  conditions  so  directly  affecting  health  and  com- 
fort should  be  borne  in  mind.  But  it  should  be  also  particularly 
remembered  that  Fifth  Avenue  is  the  chief  promenading  avenue 
of  the  city,  and  that  thousands  of  people  are  attracted  to  it  daily 
because  of  this  fact.  There  is  added  reason,  therefore,  for  keeping 
the  avenue  as  cheerful  and  sunny  as  possible,  and  for  preventing 
it  from  being  walled  up  into  a  street  of  shadows.  It  might  be  said 
of  Wall  Street  and  the  other  canyons  of  lower  New  York  that  the 
people  who  walk  on  these  streets  are  too  busy  to  think  of  sunshine, 
but  of  Fifth  Avenue,  at  least  in  the  afternoons  and  on  Sundays, 
this  cannot  be  said,  for  thousands  delight  to  spend  a  leisure  hour 
or  so  there,  while  even  shopping  along  the  avenue  is  a  pleasure 
rather  than  a  task.  In  view  of  these  conditions  can  it  not  be  said 
that  the  uninterrupted  access  of  light  and  sunshine  to  Fifth  Avenue 
becomes  of  even  more  pressing  importance  than  in  the  case  of  other 
streets  and  avenues?  Unfortunately  there  are  already  certain 
points,  as  at  the  St.  Regis  and  Gotham,  where  sunshine  is  already 
at  a  premium,  and  many  of  those  who  give  the  matter  thought  are 
fearful  of  the  possibilities  that  may  be  contained  in  every  new 
building  contract,  and  are  longing  for  the  day  which  shall  see  the 
passage  of  a  law  that  will  perpetuate  for  all  time  the  general  wel- 
fare of  our  principal  thoroughfares. 

Air 

Although  the  inner  court  is  not  to  be  feared  in  the  modern 
building  to  the  extent  that  it  has  been  in  the  past,  nevertheless  if 
unrestricted  building  heights  are  permitted  conditions  will  continue 
to  exist  where  the  lower  windows  of  neighboring  buildings  are 
deprived  of  proper  air  and  well-shaped  or  shaft-like  areas  left 
remaining  in  between  building  walls. 

Wind  currents 

The  sky-scraper  has  created  conditions  in  regard  to  the  force 
and  variability  of  wind  currents  which  are  possibly  unique.  Par- 
ticular attention  is  called  to  the  neighborhood  of  the  Flatiron  Build- 
ing, Times  Square,  and  Broad  Street,  the  Woolworth  Building, 
lower  Broadway  and  to  the  junction  of  59th  Street  and  Plaza 
Square  near  the  Savoy  and  Netherland  Hotels.  At  these  points 
particularly,  as  well  as  at  many  others,  the  force  of  the  wind  on 
gustv  days  appears  to  be  greatly  intensified  and  the  air  currents 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


215 


deflected  and  twisted  into  a  veritable  maelstrom,  which  make  con- 
ditions uncomfortable  and  inconvenient  for  men  and  particularly 
unpleasant  and  disagreeable  for  women.  Conditions  in  the  Flatiron 
district  on  windy  days  constitute,  if  not  in  legal  phraseology,  at  least 
in  common  parlance,  a  nuisance.  On  Broad  Street  crowds  some- 
times collect  to  watch  the  sport  of  throwing  out  ticker-tapes  that 
float  up  and  over  the  roof-tops,  and  to  cheer  the  owners  of  flying 
hats  that  are  caught  and  blown  up  many  stories  high.  Cases  are 
not  infrequent  where  accident  or  death  results  from  the  strong 
wind  currents  prevalent  in  the  neighborhood  of  high  buildings.  We 
cite  one  case  that  occurred  not  long  ago,  and  quote  from  the  New 
York  "Herald"  of  March  7th: 

u  Fighting  against  the  strong  wind  which  carried  him  toward  an  approach- 
ing street-car,  an  unidentified  man,  sixty  years  old,  was  struck  while  trying 
to  cross  West  426.  Street  west  of  Seventh  Avenue.  Although  the  motorman 
tried  to  check  the  car's  speed,  the  man  was  hurled  20  feet.  The  man  was 
carried  into  a  store  and  before  an  ambulance  arrived  from  the  Polvclinic 
Hospital  he  died." 

If  Fifth  Avenue  were  permitted  to  become  lined  with  many 
more  buildings  as  high  as  the  Gotham  and  St.  Regis,  conditions  on 
windy  days  would  become  highly  disagreeable,  if  not  almost  intol- 
erable. There  is  no  desire  to  exaggerate  the  importance  of  this 
particular  argument,  nevertheless  it  seems  to  be  quite  important 
enough  to  merit  serious  consideration,  or  at  least  to  be  weighed  in 
the  scales  along  with  other  arguments. 

Fire 

The  last  but  not  the  least  of  the  elements  that  must  have  its  day 
in  court  on  this  question  is  the  most  terrible  of  them  all,  still  as 
always  our  master  when  we  most  think  we  have  conquered  it,  or 
at  least  robbed  it  of  its  strength  and  its  possibilities.  Baltimore  and 
San  Francisco  answer  the  man  that  tells  us  we  have  fireproof  or  at 
least  slow-burning  buildings.  Even  if  it  be  admitted  that  there  are 
fireproof  buildings,  it  must  still  be  remembered  that  the  contents 
of  buildings  are  not  fireproof,  but  that  no  building  is  slow-burning 
or  fireproof  in  the  face  of  terribly  intense  heat  or  an  unusual  mass 
of  flame  has  been  proved  to  us  so  many  sickening  times,  with  its 
terrible  corroborative  evidence  of  loss  of  human  life,  that  it  is  sur- 
prising to  hear  it  restated  so  positively.  The  theory  should  fall 
before  the  facts  just  as  it  did  in  the  case  of  "  the  unsinkable 
Titanic."  It  is  a  significant  fact  that  in  1904  after  the  great  fire  in 
Baltimore,  which  literally  melted  innumerable  high  buildings  in 
its  path,  the  height  of  buildings  in  that  city  was  limited  to  175  feet. 

There  is  perhaps  no  man  in  New  York  more  alive  to  the  fire 
danger  in  connection  with  the  sky-scraper  than  the  man  whose 
official  duty  it  is  to  know  all  about  them — Mr.  Adolph  Ludwig,  the 
chief  inspector  of  buildings  in  Manhattan.  We  quote  as  follows 
from  a  letter  written  by  him  to  Borough  President  McAneny,  pub- 
lished in  the  "  Evening  Post  "  of  March  6,  1913: 


2l6 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


"  In  view  of  the  abnormal  height  to  which  buildings  are  being  erected, 
especially  in  the  Borough  of  Manhattan,  the  tendency  being  to  erect  build- 
ings of  greater  and  greater  height,  it  seems  that  ordinary  prudence  would 
dictate  that  a  halt  be  called  and  steps  be  taken  to  prevent  a  great  disaster 
or  calamity  in  the  future. 

14  It  may  be  stated  as  a  general  proposition  that  the  danger  to  life  increases 
almost  in  direct  proportion  to  the  height  of  the  building.  The  nearer  to  the 
ground  the  greater  the  chance  to  escape  in  case  of  fire  or  panic,  and  every 
story  added  to  a  building  diminishes  the  chances  of  escape,  and  the  higher 
the  building  the  greater  the  ultimate  loss  of  life  is  liable  to  be  in  case  of  fire 
or  panic.  It  is  argued  by  some  that  in  as  much  as  the  buildings  are  of  fire- 
proof construction  the  danger  from  fire  is  remote,  sight  being  lost  of  the 
fact  that  neither  the  human  inmates  nor  the  contents  of  these  buildings  are 
fireproof  and  can  burn  as  readily  in  a  fireproof  as  in  a  non-fireproof  building. 

'*A  stove  is  fireproof  or  of  incombustible  material,  but  this  does  not 
prevent  the  fuel  from  being  consumed.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  many  of  the 
fireproof  sky-scrapers,  as  existing  in  New  York  to-day,  with  their  open  stair- 
ways and  elevator  shafts,  present  many  similarities  to  huge  stoves  or  fur- 
naces, the  stairways  and  elevator  shafts  being  the  flues  and  the  contents  the 
fuel.  The  only  thing  needed  is  the  striking  of  a  match.  To  call  the  sky- 
scraper, as  being  erected  in  New  York  at  the  present  time,  fireproof  is  a 
misnomer  and  creates  a  false  sense  of  security  in  the  mind  of  the  public 

"  In  fighting  fires  in  buildings  of  great  height,  the  fire  department  is 
seriously  handicapped,  in  as  much  as  its  apparatus  is  effective  only  for  build- 
ings about  ioo  feet,  or  8  stories,  in  height.  Beyond  this  limit  reliance  or 
dependence  must  be  placed  upon  the  internal  fire  equipment  of  the  building 
itself,  such  as  standpipes  and  sprinklers,  which  may  or  may  not  be  in  efficient 
condition.  In  buildings  under  ioo  feet  in  height,  in  case  of  fire  or  panic, 
many  of  the  inmates  can  be  rescued  by  the  firemen  by  raising  ladders  to 
the  windows,  should  the  stairways  and  other  means  of  escape  be  cut  off, 
but  beyond  this  height  rescue  by  this  means  is  well-nigh  impossible,  and  those 
who  happen  to  be  trapped  must  be  left  to  their  fate. 

"  That  more  serious  mishaps  have  not  occurred  in  our  great  towering 
buildings  is  due  more  to  good  luck  than  to  any  precautions  that  have  been 
taken.  In  fact,  it  may  almost  be  said  that  in  rearing  these  gigantic  buildings 
little  or  no  thought  has  been  given  to  the  safety  of  the  inmates,  the  main 
consideration  being  the  maximum  revenue  that  can  be  derived  from  the 
money  invested." 

It  is  unnecessary  to  picture  what  would  happen  should  a  fire  in 
the  lower  part  of  a  tall  building  get  beyond  control  or  gain  serious 
hold  in,  say,  the  tenth  story  or  so,  out  of  reach  of  the  firemen. 
Nothing  we  can  say  in  respect  to  the  question  of  fire  can  possibly 
have  the  force  of  the  following  quotation  from  the  opinion  of 
Judge  YYorthington  in  a  case  decided  in  the  Maryland  Court  of 
Appeals  some  four  years  after  the  Baltimore  fire,  when  the  consti- 
tutionality of  a  law  limiting  the  height  of  buildings  in  a  certain  part 
of  Baltimore  was  being  tested: 

"Extracts  from  an  account  of  the  tire  will  demonstrate  some  of  the 
dangers  to  be  apprehended  from  this  devouring  element.  The  account  says: 
1  The  fire  spread  to  the  north  and  east,  rapidly  devouring  block  after  block 
of  buildings.  Landmark  after  landmark  went  down.  Nothing  but  burnt 
clay,  bricks  and  cement  could  stand  against  a  conflagration  which  developed 
2500  degrees  of  heat,  and  was  carrying  itself  along  by  its  own  volume, 
against  which  no  water  supplv,  no  human  effort  could  be  effective.  The  lofty 
sky-scrapers  on  Charles,  St.  Paul,  Calvert  and  Baltimore  Streets  burned  like 
great  torches  up  to  the  sky.  .  .  .  Shortly  after  midnight  the  American 
newspaper  office  was  enveloped  in  flames,  which  quickly  spread  across  to  the 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


2i; 


Sun  Iron  Building,  involving  all  in  common  ruin.  Devastation  was  carried 
down  Calvert  Street,  down  South  Street  and  Holliday  Street  and  Gay  Street, 
wiping  out  hotels,  newspaper  offices,  bank  buildings,  warehouses,  and  nearly 
everything  in  the  way  clear  to  the  waterfront  of  the  inner  harbor.'  Among 
the  buildings  destroyed  were  many  so-called  fireproof  structures.  After  the 
fire  these  loft  buildings  stood  amidst  the  ruins  of  lesser  buildings,  like  gaunt 
skeletons,  burned  out  interiorally,  but  still  structurally  fireproof,  with  from 
40  to  60  per  cent  salvage  credited  to  their  construction.  Great  impetus  is 
given  to  such  a  fire  by  very  tall  buildings.  They  serve  as  so  many  large 
funnels  furnishing  draft  for  the  flames,  thereby  intensifying  the  heat,  and 
outreaching  the  efforts  of  the  firemen.  Already  some  very  tall  buildings 
have  been  erected  in  this  locality :  the  Hotel  Stafford  being  132  feet  high, 
and  the  apartment  houses  known  as  The  Severn  being  115  feet  above  the 
pavement  of  the  base  line  of  Washington  Monument.  It  was  to  prevent  the 
multiplication  of  such  buildings  in  this  neighborhood,  and  the  increased 
danger  from  fire  attendant  thereon,  that  this  statute  was  no  doubt  passed. 
We  consider  such  an  object  entirely  legitimate,  and  the  statute  valid  as  far 
as  its  purpose  is  concerned." 

Congestion 

It  is  a  fact  which  becomes  evident  after  slight  investigation  or 
thought  that  high  buildings  increase  the  congestion  of  the  streets 
and  sidewalks.  Conditions  in  the  streets  and  sidewalks  in  the  down- 
town sky-scraper  district  in  the  morning  when  the  buildings  are 
being  filled,  in  the  afternoon  when  they  are  being  emptied,  and 
particularly  at  lunch  hour,  are  familiar  alike  to  all,  and  the  expe- 
rience of  being  forced  ofT  the  sidewalk,  dodging  between  trucks 
or  pushing  aside  a  horse's  nose  at  crossings  is  a  common  one.  If 
high  buildings  had  not  been  permitted  in  that  district  the  hundreds 
of  thousands  who  are  now  making  daily  use  of  an  abnormally  small 
area  would  have  been  spread  over  a  larger  area  and  street  conditions 
would  never  have  become  what  they  are  at  the  present  time. 

Fifth  Avenue  has  what  is  probably  the  heaviest  vehicular  traffic 
of  any  street  in  the  New  World,  and  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
streets  in  London  probably  of  any  important  street  or  avenue  in 
Europe.  Its  foot  traffic  is  also  very  heavy  in  certain  sections.  In 
addition  to  its  normal  traffic,  peculiar  conditions  of  congestion  have 
arisen  at  certain  hours  of  the  day  owing  to  the  presence  of  high 
loft  buildings  containing  large  masses  of  workers  and  operators, 
especially  at  the  noon  hour,  between  14th  and  23d  Streets.  Par- 
ticular reference  will  be  made  to  these  conditions  later.  Fifth  Ave- 
nue traffic,  both  foot  and  vehicular,  has  vastly  increased  during  the 
last  few  years  owing  to  the  increase  in  the  number  of  high  buildings 
on  or  near  the  avenue,  the  fact  that  the  avenue  has  become  the  great 
shopping  street,  and  for  other  reasons.  The  question  of  laying 
out  another  avenue  between  Fifth  and  Sixth  has  been  seriously 
agitated  as  a  means  of  relieving  this  congestion.  The  police  depart- 
ment is  using  all  the  ingenuity  and  experience  at  its  disposal  to 
devise  all  rules  for  the  lessening  of  this  congestion.  Commercial 
traffic  except  on  the  very  blocks  where  the  goods  are  to  be  delivered 
or  received  is  now  prohibited  between  2  and  6  p.  m.  Other  rules 
have  been  devised  and  an  ordinance  has  been  suggested  forbidding 


218 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


all  hackmen  from  cruising  along  the  avenue  without  passengers  be- 
tween 2  and  6  p.  M.  These  remedies  are,  however,  as  a  drop  in 
the  bucket,  and  the  vast  stream  of  vehicles  and  pedestrians  seems 
slowly  and  steadily  to  increase  in  volume. 

The  objections  to  overcongestion  are  quite  obvious.  Any  one 
who  has  ridden  up  and  down  Fifth  Avenue  during  the  afternoon 
hours  is  aware  of  the  long,  vexatious  delays.  Freedom  of  move- 
ment on  the  street,  both  for  persons  and  vehicles,  is  a  thing  in- 
stinctively desired.  The  particular  conditions  in  the  loft  district 
are  such  that  walking  on  the  sidewalks  during  the  lunch  hour  is  in 
reality  making  one's  way  through  a  crowd.  It  is  needless  to  add 
that  discomfort  and  inconvenience  are  not  the  only  results,  but 
that  the  dangers  to  life  and  limb  are  increased.  As  is  commonly 
known,  so  pressing  have  conditions  of  congestion  become  along 
Fifth  Avenue,  as  well  as  in  other  parts  of  the  city,  that  the  Borough 
President  has  been  engaged  in  a  campaign  for  the  widening  of 
streets,  Fifth  Avenue  in  particular,  to  the  limit  authorized  by  law. 

It  is  axiomatic  that  the  higher  the  building  the  greater  will  be 
the  street  congestion.  If  conditions  are  what  they  are  at  present  on 
Fifth  Avenue,  i.  e.,  close  to  intolerable,  it  is  unpleasant  to  think  what 
they  would  be  if  building  heights  along  and  near  the  avenue  were 
to  remain  unchecked  and  a  considerable  additional  number  of  high 
buildings  were  erected,  bringing  their  added  hundreds  and  thousands 
of  people.  Attention  is  also  called  to  the  fact  that  high  hotels  nat- 
urally increase  the  number  of  motors  and  carriages  and  high  com- 
mercial buildings  the  number  of  commercial  vehicles.  If  the  facts 
are  looked  squarely  in  the  face,  it  must  be  admitted  that  should  the 
ratio  of  street  congestion  on  Fifth  Avenue  increase  during  the  next 
ten  years  at  it  has  during  the  past  ten  years,  the  new  north  and 
south  avenue  with  its  untold  expense  to  the  city  and  its  many  draw- 
backs might  become  a  thing  of  necessity.  In  conclusion  upon  this 
point,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  state  that  everything  that  has  been 
said  about  congestion  upon  the  avenue  itself  applies  with  equal  force 
to  many  of  the  side  streets  for  some  distance  east  and  west,  where 
conditions  are  much  the  same  as  upon  the  main  artery  of  traffic 
itself. 

Prevention  of  wider  area  of  improvement 

To  those  who  have  studied  the  sky-scraper  problem  it  is  obvious 
that  the  erection  of  tall  buildings  is  distinctly  disadvantageous  in  its 
relation  to  the  making  of  other  possible  improvements.  Expe- 
rience has  shown  us  that  tall  buildings  mean  limited  areas  of  im- 
provement and  apparently  the  making  of  a  lesser  number  of  im- 
provements. For  the  sake  of  making  the  proposition  very  clear  let 
us  suppose  that  a  building  50  stories  high  is  the  equivalent  in  floor 
space  and  in  number  of  occupants  to  five  buildings  of  10  stories 
each.  The  erection  of  such  a  building  on  one  lot  would  then  take 
the  place  of  four  other  possible  improvements  on  four  other  lots. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


219 


Instead  of  tearing  down  five  old  and  antiquated  structures,  and  in- 
stead of  having  five  modern  buildings  of  up-to-date  requirements 
and  handsome  architecture,  only  one  is  demolished  and  one  new  one 
erected.  Instead  of  spreading  the  area  of  improvements  and  less- 
ening the  congestion  of  street  and  living  conditions,  the  improve- 
ments tend  naturally  to  confine  themselves  to  a  more  narrow  and 
prescribed  area,  and  the  occupants  of  buildings  to  be  centered  in  a 
particular  district. 

That  there  has  been  an  overproduction  of  tall  buildings  in  the 
lower  end  of  the  city  is  almost  a  matter  of  common  knowledge. 
Floor  space  is  thrown  upon  the  market  for  which  there  is  not  suf- 
ficient demand.  Tenants  are  lured  from  other  buildings  by  the 
ensuing  low  rentals,  leaving  empty  floor  space  behind  them.  It  is 
understood  that  in  some  cases  agents  have  been  sent  about  to  can- 
vass for  new  tenants.  In  some  instances  high  buildings  are  erected 
by  wealthy  men,  it  is  believed  for  the  primary  purpose  of  advertis- 
ing a  particular  name  or  business,  or  perhaps  leaving  behind  a  mon- 
ument, and  without  hope  of  any  return  on  the  building  as  an  in- 
vestment. Legitimate  building  operations  for  investment  purposes 
are  thus  discouraged,  rents  are  greatly  affected  and  the  real  estate 
market  is  drugged  and  put  to  sleep,  where  normally  it  would  be 
active  and  healthy.  The  general  welfare  of  the  district  is  thus 
subordinated  to  the  private  interests  and  ambitions  of  a  few  wealthy 
men  or  corporations.  The  Woolworth  Building  is  from  certain 
points  of  view  "  a  thing  of  beauty  and  a  joy  forever,"  but  there  are 
scores  upon  scores  of  unsightly,  disreputable-looking  old  buildings  in 
its  immediate  neighborhood  which  might  otherwise  have  been  im- 
proved, which  will  now  in  all  likelihood  continue  to  remain  as  they 
are  for  years. 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  such  a  condition  of  affairs  will  not  be  per- 
mitted to  exist  in  the  Fifth  Avenue  district.  It  is  certain  that 
eventually  the  avenue  itself  will  be  almost  entirely  rebuilt;  but  if 
tall  buildings  are  permitted  to  be  erected  along  the  avenue  and  be- 
come grouped  there,  and  everything  at  present  indicates  that  this  is 
the  trend,  the  neighboring  districts  will  suffer  in  consequence  and 
hundreds  of  the  ugly  old  brownstone  houses  will  long  continue  to 
exist  which  might  otherwise  be  replaced  by  attractive  modern  build- 
ings of  moderate  height  and  graceful  architecture. 

The  discussion  of  this  topic  may  be  fittingly  concluded  by  the 
following  quotation  from  an  article  in  the  "  Real  Estate  Record  and 
Guide"  of  February  22,  1913,  by  Mr.  Lawson  Purdy,  president  of 
the  board  of  tax  commissioners : 

"If  thirty  years  ago  suitable  restrictions  had  been  placed  upon  the  height 
of  buildings,  there  would  not  to-day  be  one  dollar's  worth  less  of  land  value 
south  of  Chambers  Street;  but  the  high  points  would  not  be  so  high  and 
the  low  points  would  not  be  so  low.  The  value  would  be  more  evenly  dis- 
tributed throughout  the  territory.  The  streets  would  not  be  so  congested; 
so  many  men  and  women  would  not  be  working  by  artificial  light  ;  there  would 
be  more  health  and  comfort  for  every  one  in  the  down-town  district,  to  say 
nothing  of  more  beauty  and  less  waste  of  capital  invested  in  business." 


220 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Esthetic  considerations 

Fifth  Avenue  has  particular  reason,  as  will  be  pointed  out,  for 
demanding  some  consideration  for  its  appearance.  Filled  as  it  is 
with  noble  public  buildings,  churches,  handsome  residences,  mag- 
nificent hotels  and  beautiful  store  buildings,  everything  possible 
should  be  done  to  maintain  its  dignity  and  beauty.  There  need  be 
but  little  argument  to  show  that  if  the  avenue  were  lined  in  great 
part  by  tall  buildings  it  would,  as  has  been  often  stated,  take  on 
the  resemblance  of  a  canyon,  and  lose  forever  the  charm  and  dis- 
tinction that  it  has  always  possessed,  and  which  unfortunately  in 
certain  sections,  as  between  23d  and  14th  Streets,  has  already  been 
sacrificed  on  the  altar  of  high  buildings  and  low  standards.  "Surely 
Fifth  Avenue  of  all  the  highways  in  this  city  is  entitled  to  ask  for 
low  buildings  and  high  standards,  and  that  those  elements  and  prin- 
ciples of  beauty  it  now  cherishes  may  not  only  be  retained,  but,  if 
possible,  improved  upon. 

Loft  buildings 

Mention  has  been  made  of  the  increasing  presence  of  loft  build- 
ings in  certain  parts  of  the  Fifth  Avenue  district.  These  buildings 
have  practically  ruined  that  part  of  the  avenue  which  lies  between 
14th  and  23d  Streets,  have  utterly  changed  its  former  high-class 
character,  and  have  had  a  derogatory  effect  upon  the  entire  neigh- 
borhood. Many  of  them  are  cheap  in  construction  and  appearance 
and  are  at  the  same  time  of  considerable  height,  the  highest  reach- 
ing to  about  18  stories.  It  is  anticipated  that  a  height  restriction 
will  at  least  keep  down  the  number  of  such  structures,  and  if 
nothing  else  it  would  cut  down  the  number  of  floors  and  greatly 
aid  the  problem  of  congestion.  These  buildings  are  crowded  with 
their  hundreds  and  thousands  of  garment  workers  and  operators 
who  swarm  down  upon  the  avenue  for  the  lunch  hour  between 
twelve  and  one  o'clock.  They  stand  upon  ,  or  move  slowly  along 
the  sidewalks  and  choke  them  up.  Pedestrians  thread  their  way 
through  the  crowds  as  best  they  may.  Women  shoppers  tend  to 
avoid  the  section  in  question  at  this  hour.  Ordinary  business  is 
practically  at  a  standstill  until  one  o'clock,  and  shopkeepers  com- 
plain bitterly  of  financial  losses. 

Aside  from  the  obvious  discomfort  and  undesirability  of  these 
conditions  in  themselves,  the  result  of  them  has  been  that  high-class 
shops  and  stores  have  been  driven  away  from  this  part  of  the  ave- 
nue, property  values  and  rentals  have  fallen,  and  the  avenue  has 
undergone  many  changes.  But  the  worst  of  the  matter  is  that  this 
condition  of  affairs,  at  first  confined  to  below  23d  Street,  has  in  the 
last  two  years  been  breaking  out  in  the  avenue  district  all  the  way 
up  to  50th  Street,  and  as  work  ends  at  the  close  of  the  day  thou- 
sands of  these  operators  pour  out  upon  the  sidewalks  within  a  short 
space  of  time  and  congest  the  side  streets  with  a  steady  stream  of 
humanity  that  moves  its  way  to  the  East  Side. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


221 


This  condition  of  affairs  is  well  summed  up  in  an  interview 
given  out  some  time  ago  by  Mr.  Robert  Grier  Cooke,  president  of 
the  Fifth  Avenue  Association : 

"  The  situation  confronting  Fifth  Avenue  to-day  is  most  serious.  It  is 
not  too  much  to  say  that  the  very  existence  of  the  avenue,  as  New  York 
residents  have  known  it  for  many  years,  is  threatened.  The  merchants  and 
property  owners  who  come  into  actual  contact  with  the  abuses  every  day 
and  are  directly  suffering  therefrom  have  naturally  been  the  first  to  realize 
the  seriousness  of  the  menace.  They  have  been  the  first  to  make  vigorous 
protest  against  the  destructive  tendencies  now  at  work,  but  the  matter  is 
one  of  vital  moment  as  well  to  every  New  Yorker  who  has  a  spark  of  civic 
pride  in  his  system. 

"  There  is  a  place  for  everything  and  everything  ought  to  be  in  its  place 
in  a  great  city,  just  as  much  as  in  a  man's  office  or  in  his  home.  Obviously 
the  high-class  shopping  district  and  residential  district  of  New  York  is  not 
the  place  for  its  factories.  The  two  things  simply  will  not  mix  any  more 
than  will  oil  and  water.  The  logical  results  from  the  continued  encroach- 
ment of  the  factory  will  be  to  take  from  the  avenue  those  characteristics 
which  have  given  it  its  greatest  charm,  to  depreciate  its  property  values  and 
to  make  certain  its  rapid  deterioration." 

The  Fifth  Avenue  Association  believes  that  a  limitation  upon 
the  height  of  buildings  upon  and  near  Fifth  Avenue,  though  it 
cannot  prevent  entirely  the  increase  of  such  conditions,  yet,  in  con- 
junction with  the  recent  passage  of  certain  salutary  factory  laws 
preventing  crowding  in  buildings  of  this  character,  etc.,  cannot  but 
have  effect  not  only  in  preventing  the  rapid  increase  in  the  number 
of  workers  employed  in  these  buildings  and  thus  reduce  increase 
of  congestion,  but  in  discouraging  the  erection  of  many  of  the 
buildings  themselves. 

Special  claims  of  Fifth  Avenue 

When  the  present  Commission  was  appointed  to  investigate  the 
question  of  height  limitation  throughout  the  whole  city,  the  pressing 
necessity  for  legislation  on  Fifth  Avenue  in  particular  was  recog- 
nized in  the  resolution  authorizing  the  appointment  of  the  Com- 
mission, and  an  early  report  was  specifically  requested  upon  the 
subject  of  height  limitation  on  and  near  Fifth  Avenue.  The  claims 
of  Fifth  Avenue  upon  this  subject  have  thus  been  officially  recog- 
nized by  the  city. 

Fifth  Avenue  is  probably  the  most  important  thoroughfare  in 
this  city,  perhaps  in  any  city  in  the  New  World,  and  its  reputation 
is  world-wide,  its  history  and  associations  rich  in  memories.  It  is 
unique  in  character  as  well  as  in  appearance.  Filled  with  many 
beautiful  and  important  buildings,  it  is  an  avenue  of  dignity  and, 
in  parts  at  least,  of  considerable  beauty  and  nobility  of  appearance. 
It  is  not  only  the  common  property,  but  the  common  pride,  of  all 
citizens,  rich  and  poor  alike,  their  chief  promenading  avenue,  and 
their  principal  shopping  thoroughfare.  Thus  all  alike  are  interested 
in  maintaining  the  unique  place  that  the  avenue  holds  not  only  in 
the  traditions  of  this  city  and  in  the  imagination  of  its  citizens,  but 
in  the  minds  of  the  countless  thousands  and  hundreds  of  thousands 


222 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


from  other  cities  and  countries  who  have  at  some  time  or  other 
enjoyed  the  delights  of  this  unique  street.  Furthermore,  the  avenue 
is  also  in  a  class  by  itself  in  its  relation  to  the  question  of  height 
limitation.  The  lower  part  of  the  city  has  already  been  given  over 
to  the  grip  of  the  giant  sky-scraper.  The  uppermost  part  of  the 
city  is  not  seriously  threatened  with  the  menace  of  tall  buildings. 
But  the  Fifth  Avenue  district,  at  the  heart  of  the  city,  is  in  a  crucial 
stage  and  at  the  parting  of  the  ways.  Its  location  is  such  that  it 
has  been  subjected  to  an  abnormal  activity,  and  though  this  activity 
has  not  resulted  in  giving  the  avenue  over  entirely  to  high  buildings, 
nevertheless  it  has  already  a  far  greater  number  of  such  buildings 
than  is  desirable,  and  everything  now  points  to  the  probability  that 
many  more  high  buildings  will  sooner  or  later  be  erected  upon  it 
if  no  height  limitation  is  fixed.  Now,  therefore,  is  the  critical 
moment  to  decide  what  shall  be  the  future  character  of  the  avenue, 
which  is  thus  peculiarly  related  to  the  problem  of  height  restriction. 

Unique  in  the  situation  which  it  is  facing,  unique  in  its  impor- 
tance, its  character,  its  charm,  its  associations,  and  in  the  place  it 
holds  in  the  hearts  and  minds  of  the  people,  is  it  too  much  to  assert 
that  Fifth  Avenue  is  indeed  entitled  to  special  consideration?  If 
not,  it  is  suggested  that  legislation  be  enacted  limiting  the  height  of 
buildings  in  the  Fifth  Avenue  district,  regardless  of  whether  the 
city- wide  restriction  is  recommended  or  not.  Even  if  it  should  be 
decided  that  the  city  in  general  needs  no  restriction,  there  still 
remains  peculiar  and  important  reasons,  as  we  have  endeavored  to 
show,  why  Fifth  Avenue  should,  nevertheless,  have  the  particular 
legislation  it  has  for  some  time  been  seeking. 

Recommendations 

The  Fifth  Avenue  Association  has  gone  on  record,  through  its 
executive  committee,  as  approving  of  legislation  which  would  re- 
strict the  height  of  buildings  on  Fifth  Avenue  and  within  an  area 
300  feet  east  and  west  of  the  avenue  to  125  feet  to  the  cornice  line, 
with  not  more  than  two  mansard  roof  stories  additional,  the  restric- 
tion not  to  apply  to  steeples,  domes,  towers,  or  cupolas  of  fireproof 
material  erected  for  ornamental  purposes. 

The  position  already  taken  by  the  association  is  here  again 
reaffirmed  and  a  most  urgent  appeal  made  for  the  recommendation 
and  enacting  of  the  desired  legislation  at  the  earliest  possible  date, 
to  the  end  that  the  making  of  further  contracts  for  the  erection  of 
tall  buildings  may  be  at  once  terminated.  Time  is  most  precious 
to  the  avenue,  and  further  delay  would  be  most  unfortunate  in  view 
of  the  extreme  activity  of  the  Fifth  Avenue  real  estate  market. 

To  ruin  finally  the  beauty  and  charm  of  Fifth  Avenue,  to  take 
away  its  light  and  its  sunshine  and  turn  it  into  a  dark  and  gloomy 
canyon,  to  allow  its  conditions  of  congestion  and  its  cheap  loft 
buildings  to  increase,  is  forever  to  spoil  the  avenue  as  the  people 
of  New  York  have  known  and  loved  it.   That  this  will  be  the  result, 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED  223 

if  the  present  tendency  to  the  erection  of  high  buildings  is  permitted 
to  continue  to  exist,  there  cannot  be  any  serious  doubt. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Ernest  Flagg,  Representing  the  New  York 
Chapter  of  the  American  Institute  of  Architects, 
May  29,  191 3 

Disadvantages  of  high  buildings 

It  seems  now  to  be  generally  conceded  that  something  must  be 
done  to  limit  the  height  or  area  of  buildings.  We  are  learning  by 
experience  that  streets  designed  for  a  city  four  or  five  stories  high 
cannot  be  made  to  serve  properly  for  one,  two  or  three  times  that 
height.  We  find  that  these  high  buildings  produce  certain  incon- 
veniences, among  them  the  following : 

1.  Too  great  congestion  of  the  streets; 

2.  The  shutting  out  of  sun  and  light  from  streets  and  buildings  ; 

3.  Increase  in  the  fire  risk  owing  to  the  danger  of  the  spread 
of  flames  from  one  high  building  to  another ; 

4.  Injustice  as  between  adjoining  property  owners  through  the 
preemption  of  light; 

5.  The  inflation  of  values  within  certain  favored  districts  at 
the  expense  of  the  surrounding  land ; 

6.  The  obligation  which  those  inflated  values  imposes  on  owners 
to  build  high  to  escape  ruin  by  taxation; 

7.  The  disfigurement  of  the  city  by  giving  to  the  streets  a  wild, 
western,  ragged  air,  incompatible  with  dignity,  order  or  sobriety  of 
appearance. 

Advantages  of  high  buildings 

On  the  other  hand  that  there  are  certain  advantages  attached  to 
these  high  buildings  is  evident  enough  from  the  fact  that  we  have 
built  so  many  of  them,  and  those  advantages  ought  not  to  be  lost 
sight  of.   They  are  as  follows : 

1.  When  not  too  close  together  they  afford  most  agreeable, 
healthy  and  desirable  quarters  ; 

2.  They  increase  the  available  floor  area — a  very  desirable 
feature,  especially  on  Manhattan  Island; 

3.  They  increase  the  value  of  land  by  permitting  greater  use 
to  be  made  of  it; 

4.  They  swell  the  city's  tax  roll  because  they  do  make  land 
more  valuable; 

5.  Some  of  them  are  very  good  looking  and  they  have  come 
to  be  regarded  as  distinctive  of  our  type  of  architecture; 

6.  We  are  used  to  them  and  a  large  part  of  the  community  do 
not  want  to  give  them  up. 

Is  it  not  evident,  therefore,  that  a  plan  for  regulating  high 
buildings  which  will  remove  their  bad  features  while  retaining  their 
good  ones  should  be  the  best  one  to  adopt? 


224 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Argument  for  height  limitation 

Of  course  the  first  plan  to  suggest  itself  is  a  simple  limitation 
of  height,  such  as  is  found  in  almost  all  European  cities.  This 
expedient  is,  undoubtedly,  the  best  from  the  esthetic  standpoint  for 
places  where  high  buildings  do  not  already  exist. 

To  me  it  is  absolutely  incomprehensible  how  any  one  can  prefer 
the  wild  disorder  of  the  American  city  to  the  dignified,  restrained 
and  artistic  arrangement  of  the  European  one,  where  the  uniform 
sky  lines  of  the  ordinary  buildings  give  an  appearance  of  refine- 
ment and  civilization  to  the  streets  and  afford  a  suitable  setting  and 
a  proper  background  for  the  public  buildings,  churches  and  monu- 
ments which  rise  above  them. 

Recently  the  encroachments  of  private  owners  on  the  streets  of 
Manhattan,  in  the  form  of  stoops,  porches,  areaways,  etc.,  have 
been  removed  from  some  of  the  more  important  thoroughfares,  and 
few  people  can  be  found  who  do  not  admit  that  the  improvement 
in  appearance  is  great.  The  streets  have  lost  somewhat  of  their 
ragged  provincial  aspect  and  have  assumed  more  of  a  metropolitan 
air,  but  this  improvement,  though  great,  would  appear  slight  in 
comparison  with  the  improvement  which  would  accrue  if  the  sky- 
line could  be  regulated.  Unfortunately,  that  cannot  be  done  on 
Manhattan  Island.  We  have  the  high  buildings  and  we  cannot  get 
rid  of  them. 

Methods  of  limiting  height 

While  it  must  be  admitted  that  a  flat  limitation  of  height  is  the 
best  expedient  to  adopt  in  places  where  high  buildings  do  not  exist, 
we  should  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  such  a  measure  even  then 
is  not  entirely  without  its  disadvantages.  Regulations  of  that  sort 
serve  to  reduce  both  story  heights  and  areas  which  should  be  left 
vacant  for  light.  We  have  here  in  New  York  a  limitation  on  the 
height  of  apartment  houses,  and  the  result  has  been  that  most  build- 
ings of  the  sort  which  have  been  built  since  it  has  been  in  force 
have  ceilings  as  low  as  the  law  will  allow  and  courts  as  small  as  it 
is  possible  to  make  them.  Moreover,  limitations  of  height,  if  low 
enough  to  insure  light  for  buildings  and  streets,  place  a  check  on 
congestion,  reduce  the  fire  risk,  insure  justice  as  between  adjoining 
property  owners  and  correct  the  other  evils  which  threaten  us 
through  the  indiscriminate  building  of  high  buildings,  would 
seriously  affect  the  value  of  property  and  greatly  reduce  the  city's 
income  from  taxation  or  else  correspondingly  raise  the  tax  rate. 

No  limitation  of  height  can  have  much  effect  in  improving  the 
appearance  of  that  part  of  the  city  which  is  on  Manhattan  Island, 
because  the  high  buildings  which  now  exist  will  continue  to  exist 
much  longer  than  we  will,  so  the  benefits  which  might  accrue  from 
such  a  limitation  under  other  conditions  cannot  be  reckoned  upon 
here.   Esthetic  considerations,  therefore,  which  under  other  circum- 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


stances  ought  to  have  chief  place  in  the  determination  of  a  matter 
of  this  sort,  unfortunately  do  not  form  so  important  a  part  of  our 
problem  as  they  otherwise  would.  The  damage  has  been  done  and 
it  can  serve  little  purpose  to  shut  the  barn  door  after  the  horse  has 
left.  Let  us  then  consider  the  benefits  other  than  esthetic  which 
are  to  be  hoped  for  through  a  regulation  of  the  height  or  area  of 
buildings.  In  my  judgment,  a  simple  limitation  of  height  for  Man- 
hattan Island  would  be  entirely  ineffectual  in  securing  them,  because 
no  limit  of  the  kind  sufficiently  low  to  accomplish  the  desired  objects 
will  be  agreed  to  here. 

American  municipalities  have  a  great  faculty  for  making  mis- 
takes in  matters  of  this  kind ;  they  will  not  learn  from  European 
experience,  but  only  through  their  own  mistakes. 

The  appointment  of  this  Commission  shows  that  it  is  now  begin- 
ning to  be  realized  that  a  mistake  was  made  in  permitting  the  indis- 
criminate erection  of  high  buildings;  but  twenty  years  ago  no  one 
would  listen  to  warnings  of  that  kind  as  I  learned  by  experience. 

Now  unless  I  am  a  very  bad  prophet,  another  mistake  of  the 
same  kind  is  likely  to  be  made  in  spite  of  warning — that  is  to  say, 
a  limit  of  height  placed  on  buildings  far  above  the  level  at  which 
it  can  be  effective  in  securing  the  objects  sought  for.  YVe  have  not 
yet  made  enough  mistakes  to  insure  the  adoption  of  a  remedy  for 
those  we  have  made.    That  will  come  later. 

Let  us  consider  what  this  effective  height  is.  The  most  abundant 
evidence  is  available  on  that  score,  viz.,  the  experience  and  practice 
of  all  that  part  of  the  civilized  world  where  municipal  affairs  are 
admittedly  well  regulated.  It  is  a  thing  which  is  perfectly  well 
understood  in  all  the  great  cities  of  Europe,  and  neither  the  intro- 
duction of  the  steel-frame  method  of  construction  nor  the  elevator, 
those  two  factors  which  have  wrought  such  a  change  in  our  method 
of  building,  have  been  able,  so  far  as  I  know,  in  a  single  instance 
to  induce  a  city  of  the  Old  World  to  depart  from  its  standard  of 
height.  Their  experience  has  taught  them  that  the  necessary  limit 
of  height  for  buildings  is  equal  to  about  once  the  width  of  the  street 
and  that  it  would  be  folly  to  exceed  it. 

If  a  demonstration  is  wanted  to  show  that  about  this  same  limit 
is  necessary  here,  a  very  interesting  one  can  be  found  right  at  hand. 
The  City  and  Suburban  Homes  Company  have  built  some  large 
blocks  of  model  tenements.  The  height  of  these  buildings  is  60 
feet,  and  the  area  left  vacant  30  per  cent  of  the  area  of  the  land, 
yet  the  buildings  are  only  fairly  well  lighted.  This  illustration  is 
important  because  rare  in  America.  A  very  small  part  of  this  or 
any  other  city  in  the  United  States  is  solidly  built  up  to  a  given 
height  after  the  fashion  of  European  cities.  Some  of  our  buildings 
are  high  and  some  are  low,  but  the  low  ones  greatly  predominate, 
and  it  is  not  easy  to  find  examples  covering  a  considerable  area 
illustrative  of  what  will  happen  after  a  definite  limit  of  height  has 
been  established  and  buildings  built  up  to  it.    Of  course,  if  such 


226 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


examples  were  common,  there  would  be  no  more  doubt  among  our 
people  than  there  is  in  Europe  as  to  what  is  the  necessary  limit  of 
height. 

I  think  few  people  realize  how  small  a  percentage  of  the  area  of 
this  city  is  occupied  by  tall  buildings.  Those  which  we  have  are 
so  much  in  evidence  that  they  appear  to  occupy  a  much  greater 
area  than  they  do.  Heretofore  they  have  stood  isolated  in  the  midst 
of  open  surroundings  enjoying  the  benefit  of  the  light  which  legiti- 
mately belonged  to  the  neighboring  land,  and  it  is  only  recently  that 
they  have  begun  to  interfere  with  each  other's  light. 

The  time  has  certainly  come  when  we  should  understand  that 
the  open  surroundings  which  have  heretofore  made  our  high  build- 
ings desirable  cannot  continue,  and  regulations  should  be  made 
accordingly. 

If  we  consider  the  list  of  evils,  as  enumerated,  which  have  re- 
sulted or  which  seem  likely  to  result  from  the  unrestricted  erection 
of  high  buildings  and  also  the  list  of  admittedly  good  points  which 
these  buildings  possess,  we  find  that  all  the  evils,  with  the  exception 
of  ugliness,  are  due  to  overcrowding,  and  that  all  the  good  qualities 
are  dependent  upon  not  overcrowding.  Therefore  we  can  safely 
conclude  that  a  plan  which  will  prevent  overcrowding  while  still 
permitting  the  erecting  of  high  buildings  is  the  best  one  to  adopt. 
If  such  a  plan  can  be  found,  why  is  not  the  problem  solved,  for 
what  more  can  be  desired  than  to  avoid  the  evils  while  retaining 
the  benefits  of  high  buildings? 

Plan  recommended 

I  wish  I  could  feel  as  confident  that  the  plan  I  have  suggested 
would  be  adopted  at  this  time  as  I  am  that  it  would  accomplish 
these  results.  It  is  very  simple  and  entirely  practical.  Stated 
broadly,  it  is  as  follows: 

I  would  establish  a  general  level  of  height  for  all  buildings  low 
enough  to  be  effective  in  accomplishing  the  objects  already  enumer- 
ated— that  is  to  say,  equal  to  about  once  the  width  of  the  street  on 
which  the  building  faces ;  without  other  restrictions  as  to  area  than 
that  the  least  horizontal  dimensions  of  any  court  or  areas  left  vacant 
for  light  should  equal  a  certain  proportion,  say,  one-tenth  of  the 
height  of  the  wall  or  walls  of  the  building  to  which  it  belongs  and 
which  enclose  or  partly  enclose  said  court  or  open  space.  Then  on 
an  area  sufficiently  restricted,  say,  one-quarter  of  the  area  of  the 
plot  on  which  the  building  stands,  I  would  allow  the  building  to  any 
height  without  other  restrictions  than  that  this  part  of  the  building 
be  set  back  somewhat  from  the  street  so  as  not  to  darken  it.  For 
corner  plots  and  plots  facing  on  open  spaces  more  liberal  rules  might 
be  made  than  for  inside  plots.  I  would  also  allow  an  owner  to  dis- 
pose of  his  right  to  build  high  in  favor  of  any  adjoining  plot. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


227 


Effect 

The  effect  of  such  a  law  would  be  as  follows : 

1.  It  would  act  as  an  efficient  check  on  the  building  of  high 
buildings  and  consequently  a  check  on  congestion ;  for  not  every  one 
would  exercise  the  right  to  build  above  the  general  level  if  that  part 
of  the  building  was  restricted  to  so  small  a  percentage  of  the  area  of 
the  plot,  and  it  would  not  generally  pay  to  do  so  at  all  on  small  plots ; 
if  the  right  was  exercised  in  such  cases  the  height  would  then  be 
sufficiently  restricted  by  the  practical  requirements  for  elevator 
service  and  staircases ;  but  even  if  the  owner  of  a  small  plot  was 
debarred  by  these  considerations  from  building  high  he  would  not 
necessarily  lose  the  value  of  his  privilege  to  do  so  because  he  would 
have  the  right  to  dispose  of  it  in  favor  of  adjoining  land. 

2.  Every  owner  would  be  protected  in  his  right  to  a  fair  share 
of  the  light  of  day  because,  if  adjoining  owners  could  build  above 
the  general  level  only  on  one-quarter  of  the  area  of  their  plots  no 
great  damage  could  be  done  him  however  the  buildings  might  be 
disposed.  If  an  owner  sought  to  acquire  his  neighbor's  right  to 
build  high  so  that  he  could  cover  a  greater  percentage  of  his  plot 
than  he  otherwise  could,  he  would  have  to  pay  what  it  was  worth 
and  the  person  selling  would  thus  receive  compensation  for  damage 
done  him. 

3.  Sufficient  light  for  the  streets  would  be  assured  because  the 
high  parts  of  buildings  would  be  set  back  from  the  street  line  and 
because  they  would  occupy  so  small  a  percentage  of  the  area  of  the 
land. 

4.  The  plan  would  assure  to  every  owner  of  land  the  right  to 
build  high  on  an  area  as  large  as  can  be  built  on  without  injury  to 
the  rights  of  his  neighbors  and  the  right  of  the  public  to  light  for 
the  streets,  and  this  is  all  the  liberty  he  ought  to  have,  for  it  is  all 
he  can  exercise  without  injury  to  others. 

5.  Although  the  value  of  land  might  be  decreased  by  this  plan 
in  certain  cases,  the  general  average  of  value  would  undoubtedly 
be  increased,  because  every  one  would  be  assured  that  his  light 
could  not  be  seriously  obstructed,  and  that  this  is  a  most  valuable 
asset  is  being  more  and  more  realized  as  we  find  our  land  shut  in 
and  darkened  by  the  greed  of  neighbors. 

6.  Under  this  rule,  land  values  would  be  more  evenly  distrib- 
uted, for  by  just  so  much  as  the  plan  would  serve  as  a  check  on  the 
erection  of  high  buildings  it  would  serve  to  spread  the  area  of  busi- 
ness centers.  The  area  of  the  financial  district,  for  instance,  has 
scarcely  increased  at  all  during  the  last  40  years,  while  the  floor 
area  in  that  district  (much  of  which  is  most  insufficiently  lighted) 
has  increased  tenfold  during  that  time. 

7.  The  separation  of  high  buildings  which  the  plan  would  effect 
would  greatly  lessen  the  fire  risk  because  there  would  be  less  danger 
of  fire  leaping  from  one  high  building  to  another,  and  this  might 


228 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


very  properly  be  further  reduced  by  requiring  that  all  structures 
which  exceed  the  general  level  of  height  should  be  made  entirely 
without  the  use  of  inflammable  material. 

8.  While  it  must  be  admitted  that  a  flat  limitation  of  height 
would  be  the  best  plan  from  the  esthetic  standpoint,  provided  we 
had  no  high  buildings,  that  condition  does  not  exist;  and  accepting 
the  case  as  we  find  it,  this  plan  seems  much  better.  Under  it  some 
degree  of  order  would  be  secured  by  the  establishment  of  a  uniform 
cornice  line  for  the  street  facades,  at  the  general  level,  and  this  is 
all  that  any  flat  limitation  of  height  could  do. 

The  one  redeeming  feature  of  our  high  buildings  from  the 
esthetic  standpoint  is  that  they  are  picturesque  when  seen  from  a 
distance.  The  plan  which  I  propose  would  certainly  add  to  that 
quality.  The  high  parts  of  the  buildings  as  they  wrould  be  exposed 
to  view  from  all  sides  would  be  treated  architecturally  on  all  sides. 
The  most  characteristic,  interesting  and  beautiful  of  our  high  build- 
ings are  undoubtedly  those  which  have  been  treated  as  towers,  and 
this  plan  would  certainly  encourage  that  treatment. 

9.  The  plan  while  placing  a  check  on  the  erection  of  high  build- 
ings would  deny  to  no  landowner  the  right  to  build  one. 

10.  It  would  not  hinder  the  construction  of  more  of  that  kind 
of  floor  space  which  all  who  have  occupied  the  upper  floors  of  high 
buildings  know  to  be  the  most  desirable,  healthy,  and  agreeable 
quarters  which  it  is  possible  to  get.  On  the  contrary,  it  would  per- 
mit of  the  building  of  just  as  much  of  it  as  can  be  lighted  without 
doing  injustice  to  adjoining  owners  and  to  the  public. 

11.  It  would  therefore  permit  of  the  utilization  of  the  land  to 
the  greatest  practicable  extent. 

12.  The  plan  would  be  applicable  to  and  advantageous  for  all 
classes  of  buildings. 

13.  Unlike  the  flat  limitation  of  height,  it  would  tend  to  supply 
air,  not  shut  it  out;  it  would  contain  no  inducement  to  limit  story 
heights,  and  the  permissible  area  which  could  be  occupied  above 
the  general  limit  would  be  fixed  at  a  point  where  no  improper  shut- 
ting out  of  light  could  occur. 

14.  This  plan  would  secure  to  us  all  the  advantages  of  high 
buildings  while  avoiding  their  disadvantages.  What  more  is  there 
to  desire?  Moreover,  it  is  the  only  plan  which  has  been  suggested, 
as  far  as  I  know,  which  would  do  these  things. 


Statement  by  Mr.  James  L.  Gernon,  Mercantile  Inspector 
of  the  State  Department  of  Labor,  June  26,  1913 

Loft  buildings 

Mr.  Gernon  said  it  was  very  hard  to  tell  whether  the  modern 
loft  building  was  used  for  the  purpose  of  factories,  mercantile  estab- 
lishments or  business  offices.    The  buildings  erected  in  the  city 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


229 


during  the  past  three  years  that  are  nominally  called  loft  buildings 
are  practically  factories.  There  are  manufacturing,  mercantile  and 
office  work  all  together  in  many  of  these  buildings;  many  of  them 
do  not  afford  sufficient  toilet  facilities  for  the  number  of  em- 
ployees. Many  of  the  firms  in  offices  and  mail-order  houses  have 
regular  recess  periods,  during  which  the  employees  must  use  the 
toilets.  All  the  elements  injurious  to  factory  employees  exist  in 
many  of  the  office  buildings,  such  as  overcrowding,  poor  ventila- 
tion, inadequate  light  and  insufficient  exits  in  case  of  fire.  The 
placing  of  partitions  in  stores  and  offices  should  be  prohibited  or 
regulated,  as  they  destroy  ventilation  and  light  in  many  of  the 
buildings. 

Fire  hazards  in  department  stores 

Mr.  Gernon  said  that  during  the  holiday  season  30,000  persons 
congregated  at  one  time  in  a  certain  department  store  in  New  York 
City.  This  store  has  about  7500  employees ;  there  are  many  other 
department  stores  in  the  city  having  between  3000  and  4000  em- 
ployees. There  is  a  very  great  fire  hazard  in  department  stores ; 
the  existing  stairways  are  not  adequate  for  the  holiday  crowds. 
Panic  is  even  a  greater  hazard  than  fire.  In  recent  years  panics 
have  occurred  in  department  stores  in  Paris  and  London.  Certain 
department  stores  do  not  have  their  exits  on  the  main  floor  opening 
at  the  street  level. 


Statement  by  Mr.  William  M.  Greve,  Second  Vice-President, 
Realty  Associates,  Brooklyn,  September  26,  19 13 

Height  limit  a  benefit  to  real  estate  values 

The  highest  office  building  in  the  Borough  of  Brooklyn  is  12 
stories  and  the  highest  factory  10  stories.  I  do  not  believe  at  the 
present  time  that  a  limit  as  to  the  height  of  a  building  to  be  erected 
in  the  Borough  of  Brooklyn  would  in  any  way  reduce  values.  Of 
course  I  have  in  mind  that  the  limit  shall  be  reasonable  and  that 
it  would  be  taken  up  by  streets  and  that  the  different  localities  be 
given  consideration. 

If  it  were  possible  for  your  Commission  to  make  recommenda- 
tions as  to  restricting  of  centers  and  localities,  it  would  be  a  good 
thing.  In  many  sections  of  the  Borough  of  Brooklyn  values  have 
been  reduced  by  the  expiration  of  restrictions.  In  other  places 
values  have  been  largely  fictitious  owing  to  their  proximity  to 
restricted  areas.  These  values  as  a  rule  decline  as  soon  as  the 
restrictions  on  the  restricted  area  expire,  throwing  on  the  market 
large  areas  unrestricted.  When  this  has  happened  the  values  of 
private  residences  within  the  formerly  restricted  areas  have  de- 
clined. This  is,  of  course,  considering  the  land  and  the  building 
as  one. 


23O  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

Statement  by  Mr.  William  Guerin,  Acting  Chief  Bureau  of 
Fire  Prevention,  June  26,  1913 

Elevator  congestion 

Chief  Guerin  said  that  tenants  in  high  loft  buildings  had  con- 
siderable difficulty  in  receiving  their  freight.  The  drayman  in 
taking  it  to  and  from  the  building  at  times  had  to  wait  from  two 
hours  to  half  a  day  before  getting  an  opportunity  to  use  the  elevators. 

Fire  righting 

Chief  Guerin  said  that  the  fire  department  could  not  readily 
remove  people  from  burning  buildings  at  a  greater  height  than  six 
stories.  Buildings  above  that  height  should  be  constructed  as  if 
the  fire  department  were  unable  to  remove  marooned  persons. 
Above  the  tenth  floor  the  apparatus  of  the  fire  department  cannot 
be  considered  the  primary  means  of  extinguishing  fires.  The  stand- 
pipes  in  the  building  itself  will  have  to  be  depended  upon  almost 
exclusively.  The  water  towers  are  very  ineffective  above  the 
seventh  floor — that  is,  about  85  feet  above  the  ground.  Standpipes 
in  buildings  have  three  sources  of  supply :  house  pumps,  the  gravity 
or  pressure  tanks  and  fire  department  steamer  connections.  An 
automatic  sprinkler  apparatus  is  an  absolute  necessity  in  buildings 
over  six  stories  high.  Standpipes  cannot  be  connected  with  the 
city's  high  pressure  water  system,  because  this  would  tempt  the 
owners  to  use  the  water  for  private  purposes. 

Fire  drills 

Chief  Guerin  said  that  some  of  the  best  fire  drills  in  New  York 
City  are  held  in  the  department  stores.  Chief  Guerin  also  stated 
that  school  drills  were  ideal.  The  time  consumed  in  emptying  a 
school  building  of  a  certain  number  of  pupils  would  have  to  be  dis- 
counted between  40  and  50  per  cent  for  the  same  number  of  occu- 
pants of  any  other  building. 

Conflagration  hazard 

Chief  Guerin  said  that  the  heat  wave  in  the  Wicke  Cigar  Box 
Factory  fire  which  occurred  on  January  31,  1901,  leaped  a  distance 
of  65  or  70  feet,  consuming  everything  in  its  path  within  a  moment. 
As  a  rule,  a  fire  will  leap  any  distance  less  than  50  feet.  The 
tendency  of  a  fire  is  to  pass  over  the  low  buildings  and  set  fire  to 
the  higher  buildings  beyond.  In  the  case  of  high  buildings,  a  limit 
of  150  feet  could  be  supported  by  argument  as  being  a  reasonable 
regulation  under  the  police  power  of  the  state.  In  the  case  of  one- 
,  family  two-and-a-half-story  wooden  houses  an  open  space  of  20 
feet  between  buildings  could  be  shown  to  be  a  reasonable  minimum. 
A  fire  in  a  neighboring  building  nearer  than  20  feet  would  consti- 
tute a  hazard.  If  frame  buildings  are  to  be  erected  nearer  than 
15  or  20  feet  to  each  other,  a  brick  wall  ought  to  be  required. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


23I 


Exits,  stairways  and  fire-escapes 

Chief  Guerin  said  that  the  exit  facilities  have  not  been  increased 
with  the  increased  height  of  buildings.  Elevators  cannot  properly 
be  called  a  means  of  exit.  This  has  been  proven  time  and  again 
by  experience. 

The  fire  department  has  not  worked  out  the  graduated  stairway 
— that  is,  one  which  increases  in  width  in  the  lower  stories.  Chief 
Guerin  thought  that  an  increased  number  of  inside  stairways  would 
be  more  desirable  than  a  graduated  stairway.  The  law  at  present 
bases  the  number  of  stairs  on  the  square  feet  area  of  the  building. 
The  present  factory  and  building  laws  are  not  adequate  and  do  not 
afford  sufficient  exit  facilities  in  many  cases. 

Chief  Guerin  said  that  if  a  department  store  should  have  ten 
stairways,  each  alternate  floor  should  have  an  entrance  to  five  of 
these  stairways.  This  would  obviate  stairway  congestion  in  case  of 
panic.  Every  stairway  should  have  its  exit  directly  on  the  street. 
At  present  only  a  few  of  the  department  stores  have  stair  line  exits 
emptying  directly  into  the  street. 

Chief  Guerin  also  said  that  all  persons  should  be  able  to  get  into 
a  zone  of  safety  in  a  building  within  three  to  five  minutes.  Any 
person  that  cannot  get  into  a  zone  of  safety  in  that  time  is  in  an 
extremely  hazardous  position.  Descent  can  be  made  from  a  12- 
story  building  in  three  minutes.  Between  380  and  400  operatives 
can  walk  down  a  stairway  in  a  12-story  building  in  five  minutes. 

A  person  suffocated  by  smoke  can  be  revived  if  properly  treated 
within  ten  or  fifteen  minutes. 

Fire  walls 

Chief  Guerin  said  that  the  fire  doors  in  fire  walls  should  be 
eliminated  and  exterior  fire  balconies  substituted.  Keeping  the 
doors  closed  in  fire  walls  is  most  important.  Even  the  most  care- 
fully managed  buildings  at  present  do  not  close  the  doors  in  their 
walls,  and  the  doors  are  frequently  obstructed  so  that  they  would 
not  close  in  case  of  fire.  Fire  walls  should  possess  exterior  exits. 
The  fire  wall  is  of  no  use  when  the  doors  are  open.  The  New  York 
department  stores  would  be  unwilling  to  follow  the  Philadelphia 
Wanamaker  method  of  dividing  their  buildings  into  fire  sections, 
as  the  spirit  of  the  department  store  is  a  large  unbroken  area. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Edward  R.  Hardy,  Representing  the  New 
York  Fire  Insurance  Exchange,  June  19,  1913 

Factories 

Mr.  Hardy  said  that  7  and  8  story  non-fireproof  lofts  on  the 
East  Side  of  Manhattan  were  always  full,  because  they  were  within 
easy  walking  distance  of  the  labor  market.  He  believes  in  the  segre- 
gation of  "manufacturing  into  districts. 


232 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Fire  fighting  and  insurance  rates 

Mr.  Hardy  said  that  the  fire  insurance  companies  avoided  stock 
risks  even  in  fireproof  buildings  above  the  fifth  story,  as  the  diffi- 
culty of  fighting  a  fire  above  the  fifth  floor  was  very  great.  Even 
the  fire  tower  could  not  effectively  reach  above  the  sixth  or  seventh 
floor.   There  are  two  non-fireproof  io-story  buildings  in  New  York. 

Mr.  Hardy  said  that  even  in  fireproof  buildings  there  is  a  very 
rapid  increase  in  the  insurance  rate  on  the  stock  carried  and  on  the 
building  itself  for  the  upper  floors.  On  the  Wool  worth  Building 
the  rate  due  to  excessive  height  is  25  cents  on  $100.  The  contents 
of  the  upper  floors  pay  $2  to  $3  per  $100. 

Mr.  Hardy  said  that  the  use  of  sprinkler  equipment  has  grown 
very  rapidly  since  the  Asch  Building  fire,  so  that  now  they  are  put 
in  all  new  lofts  as  a  matter  of  course,  principally  because  of  the 
much  lower  insurance  rate  which  they  bring.  Sprinklers  put  out 
two  or  three  fires  a  day  in  New  York,  usually  by  the  opening  of 
only  one  or  two  heads.  Sprinklers  level  all  hazards  regardless  of 
height  in  manufacturing  lofts,  and  the  rates  are  as  low  on  the 
fortieth  floor  as  on  the  lower  stories.  No  allowance  is  made 
for  the  failure  of  a  sprinkler  system,  as  they  are  inspected  monthly 
and  there  have  been  practically  no  failures. 

Mr.  Hardy  said  that  the  Senior  Mutuals  of  Boston  insure  for 
6  cents  on  $100,  even  on  the  heaviest  risk,  if  the  building  is 
sprinklered  and  otherwise  built  according  to  their  standards.  He 
said  that  the  average  rate  throughout  the  United  States  for  every- 
thing was  Si.  1 5  on  $100. 

Mr.  Hardy  said  that  the  Hardman-Peck  Building,  a  frame  build- 
ing 8  stories  high  and  40  years  old,  which  was  sprinklered,  had 
withstood  several  severe  exposure  fires  by  sprinkling  alone.  A  fire 
has  been  confined  to  the  26th  floor  of  the  Singer  Building  and  to 
individual  rooms  in  the  Hotel  Plaza.  The  great  trouble  is  in  exposure 
hazards. 

Mr.  Hardy  believes  that  a  limit  of  125  feet  is  satisfactory  for 
every  one,  and  personally  he  prefers  an  even  cornice  line.  He  does 
not  like  towers. 

Mr.  Hardy  considers  water  storage  tanks  on  upper  floors  to  be 
of  no  particular  advantage.  We  have  had  no  test  of  the  value  of 
standpipes  in  tall  fireproof  buildings.  The  difficulty  is  that  no  human 
being  could  withstand  the  heat,  which  often  rises  to  1800  degrees. 

Mr.  Hardy  submitted  the  following  memorandum  showing  the 
charge  for  height  in  different  classes  of  risks: 

1.  The  non-fireproof  building  of  ordinary  construction:  No  charge  up 
to  and  including  the  fourth  story;  fifth  story,  3  cents;  sixth  story,  5  cents; 
seventh  story,  12  cents;  eighth  story  and  each  story  over  eight,  15  cents. 
These  charges  are  cumulative.  Thus  a  7-story  building  would  have  a  total 
charge  of  20  cents. 

2.  The  schedule  at  present  in  use  for  apartment  houses  of  non-fireproof 
construction  makes  no  charge  for  height  up  to  and  including  the  fifth  story. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


233 


The  charges  then  are  as  follows:  sixth  story,  10  cents;  seventh  story,  20 
cents;  eighth  and  any  above,  30  cents. 

4.  The  present  schedule  recently  adopted  for  rating  fireproof  apartment 
houses  makes  no  charge  up  to  and  including  the  ninth  floor. 

This  would  make  a  charge  of  three-fourths  of  1  cent  for  the  tenth  floor 
and  I $4  cents  for  the  eleventh  floor. 

The  fireproof  hotel  schedule,  which  the  Commission  may  be  interested  in, 
is  what  is  known  as  the  New  York  Fire  Insurance  Exchange  for  Fireproof 
Buildings.  It  is  this  schedule  which  is  used  in  rating  the  office  buildings 
of  fireproof  construction  and  most  of  the  loft  buildings  of  the  same  con- 
struction.   The  charges  for  height  on  this  schedule  are  as  follows : 

No  charge  up  to  and  including  the  eighth  story. 

From  the  eighth  floor  to  the  eleventh  inclusive.  1  cent  for  each  story. 

For  the  twelfth  floor  up  to  and  including  the  fourteenth,  3  cents  for  each 
story. 

For  the  fifteenth  and  for  each  story  over,  10  cents. 

For  an  office  building,  one-fourth  of  these  charges  would  apply. 

These  charges  are  subject  to  a  large  reduction  under  the  location  rule 
for  insurance  to  be  carried  equal  to  80  per  cent  of  the  value.  To  illustrate : 
In  a  building  of  11  stories  in  height  the  gross  charges  for  height  would  be 
3  cents.  The  net  charge  would  be  1  cent.  In  a  building  of  14  stories  the 
gross  charge  would  be  12  cents  and  the  net  charge  4  cents.  In  a  building  of 
20  stories,  the  gross  charge  would  be  72  cents  and  the  net  charge  24  cents, 
assuming  there  are  no  special  reductions  to  be  made  on  account  of  fire  ap- 
pliances, etc.  If  there  were,  these  would  operate  to  reduce  the  charge  to  a 
greater  extent. 

It  perhaps  should  be  pointed  out  to  the  Commission  that  experience  and 
the  best  judgment  of  underwriters  generally  concede  that  the  installation  of 
a  high-grade  sprinkler  equipment  operates  to  nullify  to  a  great  extent  unusual 
area  and  unusual  height. 


Statement  by  Mr.  William  E.  Harmon,  President  of  Wood, 
Harmon  &  Company,  June  12,  1913 

Do  sky-scrapers  pay? 

Air.  Harmon  said  that  throughout  the  country  the  so-called  sky- 
scraper probably  does  not  on  the  average  produce  a  net  income  of 
over  3^2  per  cent  after  a  proper  provision  for  depreciation  has 
been  made.  He  further  stated  that  the  space  above  the  third  floor 
in  such  buildings  rarely  brings  in  a  net  return  over  the  current  in- 
terest rate  on  the  cost  of  the  building  alone,  without  giving  any  con- 
sideration to  the  site  value.  He  doubted  if  1  per  cent  of  the  sky- 
scrapers in  America  pay  7  per  cent  net  over  a  series  of  years  when 
a  proper  charge  has  been  made  for  depreciation  and  repairs. 

Towers  and  pyramidal  limitations 

Mr.  Harmon  considered  a  flat  limitation  proportionate  to  the 
width  of  the  street  to  be  wrong  in  principle,  and  from  an  artistic 
point  of  view  bad  in  practice.  He  preferred  a  pyramidal  limitation 
with  modifications  to  meet  the  difference  in  the  strategic  importance 
of  different  locations. 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Boston  height  limitation 

Mr.  Harmon  testified  that  while  the  Boston  height  limitation 
met  the  utilitarian  requirement  of  light  and  air,  it  produced  monot- 
onous and  inartistic  uniformity.  He  claimed  that  we  can  do  better 
by  allowing  individual  expression  as  far  as  the  requirements  of  light 
and  air  will  permit. 

Zoning 

Mr.  Harmon  said  that  owing  to  the  constant  physical  changes 
taking  place  in  New  York  City  and  the  tremendous  movement  in 
population  any  system  of  zoning  would  be  not  only  very  difficult, 
but,  in  all  likelihood,  would  be  injurious  in  its  effect  on  certain 
superior  land  values,  without  correspondingly  benefiting  inferior 
property. 

Fifth  Avenue  limitations 

Mr.  Harmon  considered  that  Fifth  Avenue  heights  should  be  so 
limited  as  to  make  the  street  particularly  valuable  for  shopping 
and  for  show  places  of  unusual  artistic  quality. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Thomas  Hastings,  of  Carrere  &  Hastings, 
Architects,  August  4,  19 13 

Unlimited  height  a  calamity 

Without  exaggeration,  I  believe  that  the  greatest  calamity  that 
has  ever  come  to  any  municipality  has  been  due  to  the  fact  that 
there  have  never  been  laws  limiting  the  height  of  buildings.  Since 
the  total  destruction  of  Pompeii,  whenever  a  great  earthquake  or 
fire  has  visited  a  city — as  at  San  Francisco — there  has  always  been 
the  possibility  of  again  putting  up  the  wrecked  buildings ;  but  there 
seems  to  be  no  hope  of  ever  taking  down  buildings  that  have  been 
put  up  without  restriction. 

Esthetics 

Where  I  believe  we  American  architects  so  often  make  a  mis- 
take is  that  we  present  our  case  as  an  appeal  for  esthetic  considera- 
tion and  for  the  general  appearance  of  a  city.  In  my  opinion  it  is 
not  a  question  of  art,  but  of  sanitation  and  of  justice  and  of  law. 
Should  we  not  consider  seriously  the  past  experiences  of  the  great 
cities  of  Europe?  Why  have  they  restricted  the  height  of  their 
buildings  and  why  do  they  continue  their  restrictions?  In  Paris 
there  are  several  formulas  to  govern  the  height  of  buildings,  as, 
for  example,  for  all  buildings  on  a  street  under  12  meters  wide  the 
front  wall  must  not  exceed  the  width  of  the  street  plus  6  meters, 
and  the  roof  must  be  contained  within  the  half  circle  drawn  tan- 
gent at  this  highest  point  with  a  radius  equal  to  one-half  the  width 
of  the  street. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


235 


I  do  not  believe  that  the  esthetic  argument  will  do  any  good.  A 
city  will  look  well  if  the  conditions  imposed  upon  architects  are 
reasonable.  I  do  not  believe  in  the  idea  that  for  the  sake  of  beauty 
we  should  look  for  any  uniformity  of  belt  courses  or  cornices  on 
buildings.  In  European  cities  this  uniformity  has  been  brought 
about  because  there  has  been  a  general  restriction  as  regards  the 
minimum  height  of  the  first  and  all  other  stories  of  buildings 
erected  within  a  limit  of  height. 

Height  limit  a  benefit  to  real  estate  values 

If  I  own  property  near  by  a  main  circulation  or  city  thorough- 
fare, I  should  benefit  proportionately  by  the  increased  demand  for 
property  on  that  thoroughfare  or  adjacent  to  it.  I  know  a  man 
who  leased  the  northern  corner  of  one  of  our  side  streets  at  a  con- 
siderable loss  because  a  25-story  building  was  erected  south  of 
him  which  shut  out  the  sun  from  his  building.  What  cannot  be 
universal  should  not  be  allowed — and  what  is  going  to  happen  when 
all  buildings  are  over  25  stories  high  on  our  narrow  streets  ?  How 
will  people  travel  up  and  down  town?  If  I  own  a  lot  25  feet  wide, 
and  my  neighbors  build  without  limit  in  height  all  around  my  prop- 
erty, this  property  becomes  practically  worthless.  Already  in  the 
lower  part  of  the  city  the  people  are  living  and  working  through  the 
day  with  artificial  light.  The  argument  that  New  York  is  on  «a 
narrow  island  is  without  effect  when  we  realize  that  the  lower  and 
narrow  part  of  New  York,  within  a  stone's  throw  of  Broadway,  is 
not  rebuilt,  and  much  of  the  property  is  only  three  or  four  stories 
high. 

The  argument  of  easy  access  and  saving  of  time  to  do  business 
because  of  high  buildings  is  not  a  good  argument,  because  reason- 
able restriction  through  natural  laws  will  bring  about  an  equally 
good  solution  of  this  problem. 

Surtax  on  high  buildings 

I  heartily  believe  that  there  should  be  a  progressive  tax  on  every 
building  now  erected  above  a  certain  height  for  each  story  in  addi- 
tion to  an  established  limit.  If  10  stories  is  a  reasonable  number  to 
be  placed  upon  a  lot  of  a  given  size,  that  same  lot  should  be  taxed 
on  double  its  valuation  when  a  man  has  built  20  stories  upon  it; 
or  an  equal  fractionally  increased  taxation  when  over  10 
and  under  20  stories.  Such  a  law  as  this  would  be  beneficial  to 
property  owners  who  may  have  built  within  reason  as  to  height, 
in  that  the  city  could  afford  to  diminish  the  tax  on  their  property 
while  increasing  the  tax  on  the  tall  buildings. 


Statement  by  Mr.  George  L.  Hoxie,  June,  23,  191 3 
Special  tax  on  high  buildings 

It  strikes  me  that  the  best  way  to  control  the  matter  is  through 
the  taxing  power.    A  control  of  this  sort  may  also  be  made  to 


236 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


compensate,  in  part,  owners  of  property  adjoining  sky-scrapers  for 
their  present  sacrifice  of  light  and  air  and  their  possible  prevention 
by  new  regulations  from  appropriating  in  their  turn  light  and  air 
of  their  neighbors. 

Let  it  be  decided  that  some  proportion  between  land  area  and 
cubical  contents  of  building  is  the  most  desirable  one.  Then  let 
a  building  that  has  a  cubical  content  greater  than  this  for  say  each 
square  foot  of  ground  area  owned  in  the  same  lot  carry  a  surtax 
on  the  value  of  the  excess.  The  surtax  might  be  graduated  in 
proportion  to  excess  of  cubical  content  over  the  desired  limit. 

If  then  an  owner  desired  to  build  a  sky-scraper  in  the  center 
of  a  private  park,  he  would  suffer  no  penalty ;  but  the  evils  of  the 
present  situation  would  be  corrected  for  the  future,  while  existing 
sky-scrapers  would  compensate  for  their  presence  by  an  addition 
to  the  revenue. 

If  desired,  this  scheme  could  be  combined  with  the  plan  of  tax- 
ing land  at  one  rate  and  improvements  at  another.  Say  that  the 
land  carries  a  given  tax  rate,  that  a  building  up  to  the  most  desirable 
content  for  area  carry  half  that  tax  rate,  that  an  excess  content  up  to 
twice  that  most  desirable  carry  the  same  tax  rate  as  the  land,  and 
that  a  still  further  excess  of  building  carry  twice  the  tax  rate  of 
the  land.  In  other  words,  make  it  to  the  owners'  interest  to  put  up 
the  sort  of  building  most  desirable  to  the  community,  rather  than 
to  try  to  make  laws  compelling  this. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Raymond  V.  Ingersoll,  Chairman  New 
York  Congestion  Committee,  June  30,  1913 

While  it  is  not  feasible  for  us  to  suggest  the  details  of  limita- 
tions upon  the  height  or  size  of  buildings  in  New  York  City,  we 
suggest  that  the  following  principles  should  obtain : 

Districting 

Varying  regulations  should  be  enacted  for  different  sections  of 
the  city,  and  usually  for  different  kinds  of  buildings  within  the  same 
district.  It  is  not  practical  to  apply  the  same  rules  to  a  rolling  mill 
as  to  a  tenement.  We  believe  that  tenements  and  dwellings  should 
be  limited  to  a  certain  number  of  stories,  not  exceeding  in  height 
a  designated  number  of  feet,  but  that  all  other  buildings  for  ordi- 
nary use,  such  as  factories  and  office  buildings,  should  be  limited 
as  to  ratio  of  volume  to  lot  area.  Not  only  should  tenements  and 
dwellings  in  outlying  sections  of  the  city  be  limited  to  three  stories, 
but  the  proportion  of  the  lot  area  which  they  may  occupy  should 
be  reduced  below  that  permitted  in  sections  of  the  city  where  pres- 
ent land  values  of  capitalized  congestion  may  prevent  the  enforce- 
ment of  even  a  healthy  standard  of  housing.  Variety  in  arrange- 
ment of  tenements  might  be  secured  by  permitting  one  additional 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


237 


story  above  the  number  permitted  in  any  zone  or  district  for  the 
minimum  required  for  such  district.  Certain  sections  of  the  city, 
where  land  has  now  only  an  acreage  value,  or  is,  at  most,  worth 
only  a  few  hundred  dollars  per  lot,  should  be  restricted  to  detached 
dwellings. 

Limitation  of  cubage 

We  would  suggest  that  a  limit  of  about  174  times  the  area  of 
the  lot  as  recommended  by  the  first  Mayor's  Building  Code  Revision 
Commission  should  be  placed  upon  the  volume  or  cubage  of  all 
sky-scrapers  even  in  lower  Manhattan,  and  a  lower  limit  in  other 
and  new  sections  of  the  city. 

Distribution  of  factories 

The  distribution  of  factories  can  be  indirectly  effected  to  some 
extent  at  least,  although  it  may  not  be  constitutional  explicitly  to 
prohibit  their  location  in  any  particular  locality.  We  suggest  that 
factories  should  be  set  back  some  distance  from  party  lines,  so  as  to 
provide  for  better  ventilation,  not  only  of  factories,  but  of  tene- 
ments on  adjoining  lots,  and  also  that  an  unoccupied  area  be  left 
at  the  rear  of  all  factory  buildings  extending  the  entire  width  of 
the  lot.  If  within  the  scope  of  the  Commission's  functions,  the 
planning  of  lines  for  carrying  freight  should  be  considered.  The 
distribution  of  factories  is  of  importance  in  its  relation  to  the  width 
of  streets.  Fewer  wide  streets  will  be  required  for  surface  tracks 
if  the  volume  of  passenger  traffic  be  reduced  by  such  distribution 
of  places  of  work. 

Width  of  streets 

The  width  of  streets  should  be  carefully  considered.  Mr. 
Thomas  Adams,  of  the  town  planning  department  of  the  Local 
Government  Board  of  England,  has  stated  that  the  system  of  high 
tenement  blocks  of  Germany  and  Sweden  is  as  much  the  result  of 
wide  roads  as  wide  roads  have  been  the  result  of  the  tenement 
system.  Alderman  W.  Thompson,  chairman  of  the  National  Hous- 
ing Council  of  England,  states  that  the  English  by-law  requirement 
that  streets  have  a  paved  or  macadamized  road  surface  of  about 
40  feet  has  made  the  cost  of  thoroughfares  in  newly  developed  es- 
tates on  the  outskirts  of  towns  "  more  than  the  land  itself."  Mr. 
Raymond  Unwin,  one  of  the  best  qualified  of  English  town  plan- 
ners, has  demonstrated  the  same  saving  by  the  use  of  narrow  roads. 

Not  only  is  the  initial  cost  of  wide  roads  saved  by  adapting  the 
width  of  the  street  to  the  neighborhood,  but  the  cost  of  upkeep  or 
maintenance  is  similarly  reduced.  The  result  in  reducing  rents  or 
the  cost  of  small  houses  is  apparent.  Where  the  subsequent  use 
of  a  district  cannot  be  foreseen,  or  until  such  time  as  the  city  can 
definitely  determine  what  it  will  be,  houses  might  be  set  back  from 
the  front  line  10  or  15  feet,  so  as  to  permit  the  widening  of  the 


238  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

street  at  a  minimum  expense  later,  or  a  grass  plot  might  be  left  in 
the  middle  of  the  street. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Clarence  H.  Kelsey,  President  Title 
Guarantee  and  Trust  Company,  September  24,  1913 

City  hurt  by  high  buildings 

Mr.  Kelsey  feared  that  the  high  buildings  had  irreparably  dam- 
aged the  residential  districts  in  Manhattan.  He  did  not  know  how 
the  situation  could  be  remedied.  No  loft  building  should  ever  have 
been  allowed  betwen  14th  and  59th  Streets  between  Fourth  and 
Sixth  Avenues.  He  considered  it  a  great  pity  that  buildings  over 
12  stories  down-town  and  8  stories  up-town  had  ever  been  erected. 

He  thought,  however,  that  what  was  left  of  the  city  should  be 
protected.  Property  owners  should  be  protected  against  themselves. 
He  said  that  the  Commission  should  err  on  the  side  of  strictness  in 
protecting  what  is  left  of  the  city.  A  limitation  of  height  would  not 
destroy  values  so  seriously  that  one  should  not  be  adopted.  He 
considered  it  the  duty  of  the  Commission  to  recommend  one  and 
run  the  criticism  that  such  action  would  involve. 

Mr.  Kelsey  said  he  did  not  believe  in  unrestricted  personal 
liberty.  Every  one  should  not  be  permitted  to  do  as  he  pleased. 
The  erection  of  high  buildings  should  be  stopped  and  the  burden 
ought  to  fall  on  those  who  would  have  to  bear  it.  Although  Mr. 
Kelsey  thought  that  no  height  limit  could  be  imposed  without  injury 
to  real  estate  values,  he  said  present  real  estate  values  were  higher 
than  they  ought  to  be  because  there  was  no  restriction  on  height, 
and  those  who  built  the  high  buildings  first  got  more  than  the  nor- 
mal value  for  their  land.  A  proper  limitation  now  would  stop  this 
robbing  of  neighbors  for  the  future,  and  all  had  better  share  what 
depreciation  resulted  from  stopping  the  practice  than  delay  and 
let  a  few  more  agile  ones  rob  the  rest  of  still  more  and  cause  them 
to  suffer  a  still  greater  depreciation. 

Arguments  advanced  in  favor  of  height  limit 

Mr.  Kelsey  advanced  the  following  arguments  in  favor  of  a 
height  limit: 

1.  High  buildings  will  make  present  streets  and  sidewalks  in- 
adequate for  traffic. 

2.  The  present  sewer  system  was  not  constructed  to  serve  high 
buildings.  If  the  city  is  to  be  developed  with  12  and  14  story  build- 
ings, its  entire  subsurface  will  have  to  be  rebuilt. 

3.  High  buildings  make  it  impossible  to  forecast  real  estate 
values.  They  have  brought  the  business  section  into  the  residence 
section.  Mr.  Kelsey  didn't  know  where  a  high-class  retail  section 
could  be  developed. 

4.  It  is  becoming  increasingly  more  difficult  to  borrow  money 
with  which  to  erect  high  buildings.    There  has  been  a  decided 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


239 


change  in  the  attitude  of  the  insurance  companies  and  the  savings 
banks  in  granting  mortgages  on  sky-scrapers. 

5.  High  buildings  encourage  the  wrong  kind  of  speculation. 
Mr.  Kelsey  thought  it  better  to  have  12  low  buildings  owned  by  12 
men  than  4  high  buildings  owned  by  4  men.  It  is  not  well  to  force 
land  into  large  ownerships. 

6.  High  buildings  depreciate  other  land  values.  The  land 
values  south  of  23d  Street  have  lost  every  bit  as  much  as  those 
north  of  23d  Street  have  gained  by  the  erection  of  high  buildings. 
The  sweatshops  have  destroyed  the  Fifth  Avenue  section.  A  height 
limit  will  make  real  estate  values  more  stable  by  diffusing  them. 

7.  High  buildings  rob  their  neighbors  of  light. 

Rule  for  height  limit 

Mr.  Kelsey  said  that  the  height  limit  should  bear  some  relation 
to  street  width.  He  said  that  a  flat  height  limit  should  be  established 
in  certain  districts  regardless  of  the  width  of  the  building.  He 
said  he  preferred  a  uniform  height  on  the  cross  streets.  On  side 
streets  a  12-story  limit  would  be  too  high.  A  series  of  12-story 
buildings  should  never  be  allowed  on  25-foot  lots.  They  might, 
however,  be  permitted  on  50-foot  or  100-foot  lots.  An  18-story 
building  is  too  high  for  a  60-foot  street.  He  said  he  prefered  a 
uniform  skyline. 

Districting 

He  said  that  the  migration  of  factories  into  residential  sections 
should  be  stopped.  Side  streets  afford  no  shipping  facilities.  He 
said  he  did  not  know  why  further  manufacturing  could  not  be  pro- 
hibited on  the  side  streets  south  of  59th  Street  and  north  of  14th 
Street  and  between  Fourth  and  Sixth  Avenues. 


Statement  by  Mr.  John  Kenlon,  Chief  of  the  New  York 
Fire  Department,  September  12,  191 3 

Height  should  be  limited 

Mr.  Kenlon  said  that  there  were  many  coordinate  phases  in- 
volved in  the  question  of  limiting  the  height  of  buildings.  Fire- 
fighting  is  only  one  of  them.  This  is  an  auspicious  time  for  limiting 
the  height  of  buildings.  The  old  part  of  the  city  is  being  rebuilt 
and  it  will  be  reconstructed  in  25  years. 

Fire  loss 

Mr.  Kenlon  said  that  the  fire  loss  in  the  city  was  $12,000,000 
in  191 1  and  $9,000,000  in  1912.  The  fire  premiums  collected  by  the 
insurance  companies  are  about  four  times  as  large  as  the  fire  loss. 
New  York  pays  for  the  rest  of  the  country. 


24°  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

Safety  of  high  buildings 

Mr.  Kenlon  said  that  high  buildings  were  not  absolutely  safe 
from  a  fire-fighting  standpoint.  The  office  buildings  down-town 
are  fairly  safe,  but  they  may  at  any  time  be  made  very  unsafe  by 
a  change  of  occupancy.  The  safety  of  a  building  depends  not  so 
much  upon  the  building  itself  as  upon  its  contents.  Office  buildings 
are  therefore  safer  than  loft  buildings.  Libraries  filled  with  books 
are  dangerous,  but  not  as  dangerous  as  shirt-waist  factories. 

The  inside  fire  protection  of  a  high  building  can  be  made  quite 
satisfactory.  A  limitation  on  height  is,  however,  desirable  if  the 
time  of  emptying  a  building  is  to  be  considered.  The  streets,  more- 
over, are  mot  wide  enough  to  hold  the  people  in  high  buildings  if 
they  were  all  to  be  emptied  at  one  time.  Fire  can  break  out  of 
windows  and  set  the  upper  stories  on  fire  from  the  outside. 

Mr.  Kenlon  said  that  a  fire  must  be  controlled  in  one  of  two 
ways:  either  by  water  or  by  isolation.  If  the  firemen  can  get  on 
the  same  floor  as  the  fire  and  to  the  floors  above,  the  persons  in 
the  building  are  fairly  safe;  if  the  firemen  are  unable  to  get  on  the 
same  floor  as  the  fire  and  to  the  floors  above  them,  persons  above 
the  fire  are  in  great  danger;  the  persons  on  the  other  floors  in  the 
building  are  safe  unless  the  floors  collapse. 

Mr.  Kenlon  said  that  he  was  not  afraid  of  high  buildings  so  long 
as  the  city  did  right  by  the  fire  department.  He  said  that  he  had 
no  fear  of  a  conflagration.  It  is  impossible  to  control  a  panic; 
panic  might  occur  in  any  building.  If  people  get  panic-stricken  and 
jump,  they  might  just  as  well  jump  from  the  forty-ninth  floor  as 
from  the  tenth.   Death  would  be  certain  in  either  case. 

Mr.  Kenlon  said  that  fire  protection  cannot  be  afforded  buildings 
from  the  street  level  to  a  greater  height  than  between  100  and  130 
feet.  A  higher  nozzle  pressure  than  that  required  to  force  water  to 
this  level  is  impracticable.  Buildings  higher  than  85  feet  should 
therefore  have  standpipes,  automatic  sprinklers,  etc.  A  building 
need  not  necessarily  be  touched  by  a  flame  to  be  set  on  fire:  the 
heat  wave,  which  is  greatest  from  100  to  150  feet  above  the  fire, 
may  set  it  on  fire.  If  the  height  of  buildings  is  limited  with  reference 
to  the  fire  protection  that  can  be  afforded  from  the  street  level,  the 
limit  should  be  placed  at  a  maximum  of  100  feet.  When  a  flame 
strikes  a  cloud  of  gas  and  smoke  in  an  enclosed  shaft,  the  whole 
building  is  instantaneously  set  on  fire. 

Mr.  Kenlon  said  that  he  considered  85  feet  to  be  the  ideal  limi- 
tation on  height.  It  is  very  difficult  to  say  what  time  limit  should 
be  required  for  the  occupants  to  vacate  a  building ;  a  quick-burning 
building  should  be  vacated  in  a  very  short  time ;  a  slow-burning 
building  could  take  a  longer  time.  High  buildings  should  be  sub- 
divided by  fireproof  walls  and  provided  with  horizontal  exits.  All 
high  buildings  should  be  provided  with  three  essentials:  (1)  fire 
walls;  (2)  tower  stairs,  and  (3)  automatic  sprinklers.    There  are 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


24I 


few  buildings  of  this  character  in  the  city  at  present.  Tower  stairs 
enable  the  firemen  to  fight  a  fire  on  its  own  level. 

Mr.  Kenlon  said  that  he  regards  6-inch  terra-cotta  walls  with 
wire  glass  as  excellent  fire  stops.  He  stated  that  such  a  wall  could 
withstand  a  temperature  of  1600  degrees  Fahrenheit  for  30  minutes. 
In  high  buildings  the  standpipes  should  be  considered  as  the  primary 
and  not  as  the  auxiliary  means  of  fighting  fires.  The  automatic 
sprinkler  standpipes  in  buildings  could  not  at  present  have  direct 
connection  with  the  high-pressure  mains,  but  by  proper  coordination 
between  the  department  of  water  supply  and  the  fire  department 
in  the  preparation  of  specifications  for  the  extension  of  the  high- 
pressure  system  such  a  scheme  is  perfectly  feasible. 

Mr.  Kenlon  said  that  the  Yonkers  reservoir  is  300  feet  higher 
than  the  lower  end  of  Manhattan  Island.  This  is  equal  to  a  pres- 
sure of  120  pounds  to  the  square  inch  in  the  high-pressure  mains. 
By  putting  in  strong  pipes  that  could  be  tapped  without  danger 
of  blow-outs,  this  pressure  could  be  utilized  for  a  sprinkler  supply, 
thereby  relieving  taxpayers  of  the  extra  expense  of  tanks  and 
pumping  machinery  in  these  buildings. 

Districting 

Mr.  Kenlon  said  the  city  authorities  should  begin  now  by  limit- 
ing the  height  of  buildings  in  the  boroughs  of  Queens,  Richmond, 
The  Bronx,  and  parts  of  Brooklyn.  As  to  Manhattan,  it  is  just 
as  essential,  but  very  much  complicated  on  account  of  the  many 
high  buildings  already  erected  and  the  injustice  to  property  owners 
who  purchased  land  at  very  high  prices.  It  would  seem  unfair,  he 
said,  to  permit  one  man  to  erect  a  42-story  building  and  compel  an- 
other, who  paid  dearly  for  land  on  the  same  block,  to  keep  down  to 
8  stories  high. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Charles  W.  Killam,  Professor,  School  of 
Architecture,  Harvard  University,  Boston,  Mass.,  Octo- 
ber 4,  1913 

Cornices  and  parapet  walls 

Mr.  Killam  said  that  a  height  limit  was  incomplete  unless  it 
incorporated  a  limit  on  the  width  of  cornices  and  also  one  on  the 
height  of  parapet  walls.  A  height  limit  is  sometimes  nullified  by 
the  erection  of  high  parapet  walls. 

Tenement  house  law 

Mr.  Killam  referred  to  the  Massachusetts  Tenement  House  Act 
for  Cities,  chapter  786,  Acts  of  1913,  a  permissive  law  which  may 
be  adopted  by  any  city  except  Boston.  That  law  has  the  follow- 
ing provisions: 

A  parapet  exceeding  3  feet  in  height  is  considered  as  a  part  of  the  height 
of  the  building. 


242 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


The  number  of  stories  is  restricted  to  one  for  each  10  feet  in  width  of 
the  street. 

Three-story  tenements  on  interior  lots  to  have  15-foot  rear  yard  with 
addition  of  5  feet  for  each  additional  story. 

An  outer  court  on  the  lot  line  extending  from  the  street  to  the  yard  is 
allowed  to  be  narrower  than  other  courts. 

Referring  to  the  Brookline  law  as  amended  April  10,  1912,  Mr. 
Killam  said  that  for  tenements  60  feet  in  height  an  inner  court  in- 
closed on  all  four  sides  shall  have  a  least  horizontal  dimension  of 
24  feet. 


Statement  by  S.  Adolpiius  Knopf,  M.  D.,  Professor  of  Medi- 
cine, Department  of  Phthisic-Therapy,  New  York  Post- 
graduate Medical  School  and  Hospital,  July  29,  191 3 

High  buildings  and  tuberculosis 

As  a  physician  you  will  pardon  me  if  I  leave  the  consideration 
of  the  commercial  and  esthetic  aspect  of  the  situation  for  others  to 
consider  who  are  more  qualified  to  do  this.  As  a  medical  man  and 
a  sanitarian,  I  wish  to  speak  merely  of  the  danger  to  health  and  life 
of  our  fellow  citizens  which  arises  from  too  tall  buildings  wherever 
the  streets  are  so  narrow  as  to  prevent  the  necessary  natural  light, 
sunshine  and  pure  air  to  enter  the  lower  stories  of  the  buildings. 
As  a  specialist  in  tuberculosis,  I  may  be  permitted  to  speak  prin- 
cipally of  this  affliction  so  justly  called  the  "  Great  White  Plague." 

Tuberculosis,  which  is  propagated  by  bad  air,  foul  air  and  lack 
of  sunlight,  causes  annually  a  loss  of  200,000  citizens  to  the  United 
States.  This  disease  could  be  largely  prevented  would  we  live  and 
work  in  pure  air,  in  air  relatively  free  from  mineral  and  vegetable 
dust,  and  last,  but  not  least,  would  we  construct  the  buildings  in 
which  we  live  and  labor  so  as  to  allow  sunlight  to  enter  more  freely. 
Tuberculosis  is  far  more  prevalent  among  the  workers  in  our  down- 
town tall  office  buildings  than  is  generally  known  and  much  more 
than  should  be  the  case  when  one  considers  the  wealth  which  is 
harbored  there  and  the  relatively  good  pay  these  bookkeepers  and 
clerks  receive  as  a  rule. 

Carefully  gathered  statistics  show  that  in  the  city  of  New  York 
the  garment  workers  are  afflicted  more  frequently  with  tuberculosis 
than  any  other  class  of  workers.  The  majority  of  these  workers 
do  not,  as  is  often  thought,  work  in  their  homes.  They  work  in 
the  tall  crowded  buildings,  situated  in  congested  districts,  10,  12,  20 
or  more  stories  high,  where  every  floor  masses  hundreds  of  workers. 
Many  are  tuberculous  without  knowing  it.  Others  know  that  they 
are  tuberculous,  but,  perhaps  fearing  their  discharge,  hide  their 
disease  as  long  as  they  can;  but  in  the  meantime  they  disseminate 
the  germ  of  tuberculosis  by  coughing  in  their  neighbors'  faces,  or 
over  the  clothing  they  manufacture,  or,  whal  is  still  more  frequent, 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


243 


spread  the  disease  by  careless  expectoration  on  the  floor.  During 
luncheon  hour  they  crowd  streets  and  avenues  and  those  afflicted 
with  the  disease  expectorate  freely  on  sidewalks  and  streets.  The 
infectious  sputum  dries  and  pulverizes,  and  is  inhaled  with  the  dust 
and  causes  tuberculosis  in  any  susceptible  individual  who  may  fre- 
quent that  street. 

Again,  the  infectious  spittle  from  the  consumptive  may  be 
carried  on  the  soles  of  the  workers'  shoes  back  into  the  factory  or 
into  their  own  homes,  causing  the  infection  of  wife  and  children. 
In  case  of  epidemics  of  pneumonia  and  la  grippe,  the  same  process 
of  infection  through  spitting  and  coughing  is  carried  on  and  both 
diseases  are  by  no  means  so  infrequent  or  non-dangerous  as  is  gen- 
erally supposed. 

And  now,  not  content  with  the  many  altogether  too  tall  build- 
ings already  lining  the  part  of  Fifth  Avenue  south  of  23d  Street 
and  the  adjoining  streets,  some,  let  me  hope  not  greedy  but  only 
thoughtless,  capitalists  wish  to  increase  the  number  of  disease-breed- 
ing and  death-trap  sky-scrapers  and  erect  them  in  the  one  principal 
and  most  beautiful  street  of  New  York  City  where  there  are  as  yet 
relatively  few  of  these  unsanitary  and  unsafe  structures.  I  use  the 
term  "  unsafe "  advisedly.  The  workers  in  the  tall  buildings  in 
narrow  streets  are,  as  above  described,  much  exposed  to  the  danger 
of  contracting  the  various  diseases  of  the  respiratory  organs  (tuber- 
culosis, pneumonia,  la  grippe,  etc.).  The  same  holds  good  of  the 
people  who  are  obliged  to  walk  these  streets  who,  in  addition,  are 
exposed  to  dangerous  drafts  and  currents  of  air,  which  contain,  par- 
ticularly in  the  lower  strata  of  the  atmosphere  of  these  canyon- 
like streets,  a  large  portion  of  the  noxious  gases  characteristic  of 
every  large  city.  Where  the  buildings  are  low  and  the  streets  are 
wide,  these  poisonous  gases  diffuse  much  more  easily  and  hence 
are  less  dangerous. 

I  trust  that  your  Commission  may  report  favorably  on  the  limi- 
tation of  the  height  of  buildings  regarding  the  section  north  of  23d 
Street  on  Fifth  Avenue.  Fifth  Avenue  is  perhaps  now  and  surely 
will  be  in  the  future  the  street  most  eagerly  sought  by  strangers 
visiting  the  city.  In  the  past  it  has  been  admired  for  its  beautiful 
buildings,  which  are  low,  for  its  width  as  a  thoroughfare,  and  for 
the  light  and  air  which  spell  health  and  beauty.  Is  all  this  to  be 
changed  because  of  thoughtlessness  or  greed? 


Statement  by  Mr.  Walter  Laidlaw,  Executive  Secretary  New 
York  Federation  of  Churches,  June  12,  1913 

Zoning 

Mr.  Laidlaw  said  that  he  was  a  zonist  absolutely ;  that  he  was 
principally  interested  in  the  subject  from  the  standpoint  of  providing 
homes  for  wage  earners.    The  mere  growth  in  ten  years  within  a 


244 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


19-mile  radius  from  the  City  Hall  of  New  York  was  greater  than 
the  total  population  of  all  but  seven  of  the  largest  cities  of  the  world. 
There  is  no  need  for  tenements  in  New  York.  All  the  population 
of  New  York  City  for  thirty  years  to  come  can  be  accommodated  in 
two-family  houses,  14  to  the  acre.  The  factory  and  house  owner 
should  be  encouraged  to  move  out  from  the  congested  region.  More 
and  more  immigrants  are  to-day  going  to  The  Bronx,  and  as  many 
into  Brooklyn  as  into  Manhattan. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Walter  Lindner,  Counsel  Title  Guarantee 
and  Trust  Company,  July  7,  1913 

Districting 

I  believe  that  the  height  of  buildings  to  be  erected  in  the  future 
requires  restriction.  Under  existing  constitutional  limitations,  such 
restrictions  must  be  justifiable  on  the  ground  that  they  are  appro- 
priate to  the  preservation  of  the  public  health,  safety  or  morals 
— that  is  to  say,  that  they  come  under  the  exercise  of  the  police 
power.  Such  limits  as  are  adopted  should  be  reasonable — that  is 
to  say,  they  should  be  just  both  to  the  property  owner  and  the  com- 
munity and  should  not  go  further  than  can  be  supported  by  public 
opinion.  An  illustration  of  regulations  which  have  the  support  of 
public  opinion  and  therefore  are  never  seriously  questioned,  is  the 
manner  in  which  the  fire  limits  of  the  city  have  been  fixed  and 
extended  from  time  to  time. 

The  city  could  place  a  flat  limitation  on  the  height  of  all  build- 
ings, but  if  it  did,  such  limitation  ought  to  apply  to  all  boroughs 
equally.  It  might  also  establish  a  flat  limitation  with  a  proviso  that 
certain  percentages  of  the  area  and,  if  advisable,  portions  set  off* 
from  the  sides  of  the  lot,  may  be  carried  to  greater  height.  A  per- 
mission of  this  kind  could  be  justified  on  the  ground  that  if  the 
owner  went  to  a  greater  height  within  the  limits  of  his  own  lot, 
setting  off  from  the  sides,  front  and  rear  when  he  goes  beyond  the 
flat  limitation,  he  would  not  be  using  the  light  and  air  belonging  to 
the  community  but  only  that  within  his  own  lot.  In  all  permissions 
to  erect  high  buildings,  the  fire  hazard,  the  panic  danger  and  the 
ability  of  the  fire  department  to  reach  great  heights  can  be  taken 
into  account. 

I  do  not  believe  that  the  zone  system  can  be  adopted  under  the 
present  constitutional  limitations,  nor  do  I  believe  if  it  could  be 
adopted  that  it  would  be  advisable.  The  zone  system  based  on 
present  land  values  could  be  construed  by  the  courts  as  being  based 
on  expediency  and  not  on  principles  justifiable  by  the  police  power. 

The  difference  in  social  conditions  would  not  justify  the  exercise 
of  the  police  power  to  limit  buildings  at  different  heights  in  different 
districts. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


245 


If  health  and  sanitation  warranted  limiting  buildings  in  the 
suburbs  at  a  low  height,  then  these  same  grounds  could  be  con- 
sistently urged  in  remedying  the  congestion  in  the  built-up  areas. 
No  one  has  a  vested  right  to  maintain  an  unsanitary  condition 
whether  it  is  in  the  outlying  or  in  the  central  part  of  the  city.  The 
unsanitary  conditions  of  old  districts  cannot  be  urged  in  justifica- 
tion of  stricter  provisions  in  new  districts.  This  would  be  to  dis- 
criminate between  the  healthfulness  of  different  localities.  Legis- 
lation cannot  be  passed  to  limit  buildings  at  different  heights  in  dif- 
ferent districts  unless  exceptions  are  made  to  prevent  wholesale 
destruction  of  existing  buildings ;  it  should  be  directed  toward  the 
abolition  of  unsanitary  conditions  in  all  localities. 

Tt  does  not  seem  to  me  that  industries  which  do  not  involve 
special  fire  hazard,  or  which  do  not  emit  offensive  or  noxious  fumes 
or  fluids,  could  be  restricted  to  certain  districts.  Breweries,  there- 
fore, could  probably  be  kept  out  of  residential  neighborhoods ;  milli- 
nery shops,  on  the  other  hand,  could  not. 

Assuming  we  could  have  zones,  I  think  the  height  limit  in  any 
particular  zone  should  not  be  altered  by  a  vote  of  a  certain  per- 
centage of  lot  owners.  If  this  were  done,  it  would  deprive  the 
remaining  percentage  of  its  protection. 

New  streets  in  undeveloped  sections  might  be  made  narrower. 
The  city  might  acquire  a  30  or  40  foot  strip  for  the  roadway  and 
an  easement  of  15  feet  on  each  side  for  set-back  purposes.  This 
would  make  the  legal  width  of  the  street  only  30  or  40  feet.  This 
plan,  if  adopted,  would  permit  different  height  limits  in  different 
sections  of  the  city,  provided  the  buildings  facing  the  street  were 
limited  in  height  to,  say,  i1/*  times  the  width  of  the  street. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Electus  D.  Litchfield,  Representing  the 
New  York  Chapter  of  the  American  Institute  of  Archi- 
tects, May  29,  191 3 

I  may  present  to  you  one  or  two  suggestions  relative  to  the  work 
which  you  have  in  hand  which  came  as  the  result  of  a  very  consid- 
erable study  which  I  have  given  the  problem,  first  as  a  member  of 
the  special  committee  on  Limitation  of  Heights  of  Buildings  of  the 
Building  Code  Revision  Commission  of  the  years  1906- 1907  and 
since  then  as  one  who  has  come  to  a  very  definite  conclusion  as  to 
the  proper  course  of  action  in  the  premises. 

History 

I  do  not  know  just  when  the  agitation  for  a  limitation  of  the 
height  of  buildings  in  New  York  City  first  started.  From  the  first  it 
has  been  closely  allied  with  the  movement  for  bettering  housing 
conditions  and  with  the  enactment  of  legislation  for  the  conservation 
to  the  tenement-house  dweller  of  light  and  air.    Together  with 


246 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


this,  owing  in  a  great  measure  to  the  inadequate  architectural  solu- 
tion of  the  problem  of  the  design  of  the  extremely  high  building 
made  possible  by  the  invention  of  the  skeleton  steel  construction, 
there  has  arisen  a  prejudice  against  the  high  buildings  from  the 
artistic  standpoint. 

Esthetic  side 

The  successful  design  of  buildings  of  great  height  has  been  so 
rare  that  there  has  developed  a  distinct  artistic  prejudice  against 
the  high  buildings  as  a  class  which  very  probably  is  not  justified. 
Then,  too,  the  design  of  individual  buildings  without  any  regard 
for  the  neighboring  conditions  has  produced  even  on  our  most  im- 
portant streets  such  an  irregular  and  in  no  sense  picturesque  cornice 
and  sky  line  that  there  has  arisen  a  distinct  desire  for  such  a  regu- 
lation of  the  heights,  or  at  least  of  the  cornice  lines,  of  the  buildings 
upon  such  streets  as  Fifth  Avenue  as  would  produce  an  architectural 
dignity  which  is  now  lacking  and  which  they  might  well  possess. 

John  M.  Carrere's  idea 

The  late  John  M.  Carrere  gave  voice  to  a  suggestion  relative  to 
the  limitation  of  the  heights  of  buildings  at  the  preliminary  hearing 
before  the  Building  Code  Commission  in  1906.  The  records  of  the 
New  York  Chapter  of  the  American  Institute  of  Architects  show 
that  the  matter  was  under  discussion  among  architects  certainly  not 
less  than  six  years  prior  to  this,  but  so  far  as  I  know  Mr.  Carrere's 
suggestion  was  the  first  one  made  before  an  official  body  in  the  city 
of  New  York.  His  proposition  was  that  some  plan  should  be 
worked  out  by  which  the  taxes  upon  buildings  should  be  increased 
in  a  definite  proportion  as  the  buildings  increased  in  height,  as  the 
higher  the  buildings  went  the  more  of  the  necessary  light  and  air 
they  consumed,  his  idea  being  that,  after  the  proper  tax  had  been 
calculated  according  to  the  value  of  building,  it  be  multiplied  by  a 
certain  factor  which  would  be  based  upon  the  recognition  of  the 
fact  that  in  so  far  as  the  building  extended  above  a  reasonable 
height  it  absorbed  more  than  its  own  share  of  light  and  air. 

Mr.  Carrere's  idea  in  regard  to  the  limitation  of  height  through 
taxation,  while  not  altogether,  I  think,  a  practical  one,  was,  I  sup- 
pose, based  on  the  principle,  which  must  be  correct,  that  the  owner- 
ship of  a  building  or  lands  does  not  carry  with  it  a  slice  of  the 
atmosphere  from  the  earth  to  the  heavens.  Indeed  the  lawyers  will 
tell  us  that  property  rights,  being  derived  from  the  state,  are  con- 
trollable by  the  state  for  the  benefit  of  the  public. 

Point  of  view  of  the  courts 

The  time  has  not  yet  arrived  when  esthetic  considerations  have 
controlling  weight  with  the  courts  at  law.  In  questions  involving 
the  health  and  comfort  of  the  community,  sanitary  conditions,  on 
the  other  hand,  have  long  since  been  considered  of  the  utmost  im- 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


247 


portance.  The  principle  of  pro  bono  publico  is  a  recognized  one 
as  regards  the  right  of  the  state  to  govern  the  individual  and  the 
courts  have  set  forth  unequivocally  the  principle  that  the  property 
rights  of  the  individual  are  subordinate  to  the  rights  of  the  com- 
munity. 

The  supreme  court  of  the  state  of  Maine  in  a  recent  decision  has 
said:  "  The  right  of  the  public  to  control  and  limit  the  use  of  pri- 
vate property  is  peculiarly  applicable  to  property  in  land  because 
such  property  is  not  the  result  of  productive  labor  but  is  derived 
solely  from  the  state  itself,  the  original  owner."  The  court  goes  on 
to  say :  "  We  do  not  think  the  proposed  legislation  would  take 
private  property  within  the  inhibition  of  the  constitution;  while  it 
might  restrict  the  owner  of  lands  in  his  use  of  them,  might  delay 
his  anticipated  profits,  and  even  thereby  might  cause  him  some  loss 
of  profit,  he  would  still  have  a  large  measure  of  control  and  large 
opportunities  to  realize  values." 

Mr.  Justice  Holmes  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  that  Court  on  April  6,  1908,  sus- 
taining the  Court  of  Errors  and  Appeals  of  New  Jersey  in  a  sim- 
ilar view,  has  said :  "  The  State  as  quasi  sovereign  and  representa- 
tive of  the  interests  of  the  public  has  a  standing  in  court  to  protect 
the  atmosphere,  the  water  and  the  forests  within  its  territory,  irre- 
spective of  the  assent  or  dissent  of  the  private  owners  of  the  land 
most  immediately  concerned." 

Method  of  limiting  height 

It  is  clearly  within  the  prerogative  of  the  Board  of  Estimate 
and  Apportionment  together  with  the  Board  of  Aldermen  to  pro- 
vide such  regulations  as  to  height  and  area  of  buildings  as  are  nec- 
essary to  maintain  the  best  interests  of  the  community.  These  regu- 
lations must  divide  themselves  into  three  distinct  classes,  as  there 
are  three  distinct  interests  of  the  community  to  be  subserved.  These 
are  as  follows :  ( 1 )  that  all  buildings  shall  have  sufficient  light  and 
air  for  the  comfort  of  their  occupants;  (2)  that  the  streets  shall 
have  proper  light  and  ventilation;  and  (3)  that  the  buildings  abut- 
ting upon  the  streets  shall  not  contain  more  people  than  the  street, 
the  transit  facilities  and  the  sewers  may  properly  serve. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  time  has  arrived  when  it  is  necessary 
to  the  protection  of  each  of  these  interests  of  the  people  that  the 
size  of  buildings  shall  in  some  way  be  regulated.  It  is  also  clear 
that  some  regulation  of  the  height  of  cornice  lines  would  be  a  dis- 
tinct architectural  advantage  to  the  city.  Whether  such  regulation 
is  possible  is  for  your  Commission  to  determine.  The  regulation, 
however,  which  is  necessary  to  protect  the  light  and  air  of  the  build- 
ings' tenants,  the  light  and  air  of  the  people  in  the  street,  and  the 
regulation  of  the  size  of  buildings  so  that  the  population  of  them 
shall  not  be  greater  than  the  sewers,  streets  and  transit  facilities  may 
properly  serve,  are  clearly  matters  for  which  an  ordinance  may 


248  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

properly  be  framed.  Within  certain  limits  the  protection  of  the 
light  and  air  of  the  tenants  of  the  individual  building  is  taken  care 
of  by  the  building  and  the  tenement  house  laws. 

Limit  volume,  not  height 

Your  problem  concerns  itself  more  with  the  damage  which  one 
building  may  do  to  the  tenants  of  another  and  to  the  protection  of 
the  streets.  Most  cities  which  have  taken  up  this  problem  have 
ended  by  passing  a  law  setting  a  flat  limit  of  height  for  all  build- 
ings. The  majority  of  the  Building  Code  Commission  of  1906- 
1907  started  out  feeling  that  such  a  law  should  be  passed  in  New 
York  City.  As  the  result,  however,  of  the  work  of  our  special 
committee  to  whom  this  matter  was  referred  the  Building  Code 
Commission  finally  decided  to  recommend  not  a  limit  of  height  but 
a  limit  of  volume.  It  is  perhaps  a  trifle  difficult  to  grasp  easily  the 
meaning  of  such  a  law  or  regulation.  Perhaps  the  easiest  way  of 
understanding  it  is  to  assume  that  you  have  adopted  a  limit  of  height. 
Let  us  suppose,  for  instance,  you  have  determined  that  200  feet  is 
the  greatest  height  that  any  building  should  go  in  the  financial  dis- 
trict (you  will,  I  trust,  whether  you  finally  decide  on  limits  or  height 
or  limits  of  volume,  set  different  limits  for  different  sections). 

Let  us  suppose,  I  say,  that  you  have  determined  upon  a  maximum 
height  of  200  feet.  Take  a  building  200  feet  high  on  a  lot  100  feet 
deep  and  say  100  feet  in  width;  provide  that  a  proper  percentage 
of  the  light  be  devoted  to  light  court  and  calculate  the  volume  of 
the  building  above  the  grade  line  upon  the  lot.  This  volume  will 
evidently  be  less  than  200  times  the  area  of  the  lot.  If  you  will  di- 
vide the  total  volume  which  you  have  obtained  by  200,  you  will 
obtain  a  factor  which  multiplied  by  the  area  of  any  lot  will  give 
you  the  volume  of  the  building  which  your  regulations  will  allow. 

It  was  the  conclusion  of  our  commission,  and  it  is  this  point 
which  I  wish  to  place  before  your  Commission  to-day,  that  as  far 
as  light  and  air  are  concerned  the  people  will  be  more  greatly 
benefited  if,  keeping  the  volume  of  the  building  the  same,  the  area 
of  the  light  courts  or  the  width  of  the  street  were  increased.  There 
is  an  infinite  space  above  every  building,  but  there  is  a  very  limited 
space  between  each  building  and  its  neighbor.  If,  then,  while  the 
volume  of  the  building  is  kept  constant,  the  factor  of  height  be  in- 
creased, the  factors  of  width  and  depth  must  necessarily  be  de- 
creased. Any  increase  of  a  few  feet  in  the  width  of  a  street  or  of 
a  light  court  justifies  more  than  a  proportionate  increase  in  height 

If  you  set  a  flat  limit  of  height,  commercial  interests  will  tend  to 
make  a  property  owner  build  as  completely  as  your  light  court  reg- 
ulations will  allow  him  over  his  entire  lot.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
you  set  an  equivalent  limit  of  volume,  he  will  be  enabled  to  leave 
greater  lieht  courts  and  have  a  much  {greater  freedom  in  the  design 
of  his  building.   One  of  the  glories  of  New  York  is  its  towers.  One 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


249 


of  its  shames  is  that  they  are  built  so  close  together  as  to  cut  off 
necessary  light. 

Let  me  urge  you  to  so  frame  your  regulations  that  we  may  still 
build  our  towers  in  ever-increasing  beauty,  but  only  when  we  pro- 
vide about  them  such  space  as  shall  be  proper,  not  only  for  the 
health  and  comfort  of  the  people  occupying  the  building  itself,  but 
of  those  in  our  neighbors'  buildings  and  of  those  upon  the  street. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Oscar  Lo win  son,  Representing  New  York 
Society  of  Architects,  June  30,  191 3 

Methods  of  limiting  height 

As  a  matter  of  public  policy  and  under  what  is  known  as  police 
regulations,  it  is  advisable  to  establish  standards  in  reference  to 
regulating  the  heights  of  buildings.  As  a  police  regulation,  the 
danger  in  case  of  fire  or  panic  in  a  high  building  should  be  con- 
sidered sufficient  to  require  ample  means  of  escape  which  in  them- 
selves would  probably  stop  the  construction  beyond  normal  limits. 
Except  in  special  types  of  buildings,  there  is  no  need  of  a  building 
being  more  than  10  or  12  stories  in  height.  The  height  of  the  build- 
ing should  be  determined  from  standards  which  should  be  estab- 
lished. With  our  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  distribution  of  light, 
it  should  not  be  a  serious  matter  to  frame  regulations  making  the 
height  of  a  wall  dependent  upon  the  distance  of  the  opposite  wall. 
Always  care  should  be  exercised  that  this  should  not  work  a  hard- 
ship. The  important  thing,  however,  is  to  establish  a  standard,  if 
your  Commission  can  accomplish  this,  combined  with  recommenda- 
tions as  to  size  of  exits. 

It  has  often  been  said  that  if  you  permit  a  germ  to  have  free 
way  it  will  eat  itself  to  death,  and  this  has  been  said  of  the  high- 
buildings  movement.  However,  as  the  constructors  of  high  build- 
ings are  almost  invariably  of  the  class  that  have  no  thought  of  their 
moral  responsibilities,  regulations  forcing  the  stoppage  of  this  class 
of  work  should  be  enacted. 


Statement  by  Mr.  William  O.  Ludlow,  Architect,  from 
"  Record  and  Guide,"  April  19,  19 13 

The  regulation  of  building  height 

1.  The  height  of  any  building  at  the  building  line,  except  on 
corner  plots,  shall  not  exceed  12  times  the  square  root  of  the  width 
of  the  street  upon  which  it  is  located ;  and  no  part  of  such  building 
shall  extend  above  the  plane  formed  by  the  building  line  at  this 
height  and  a  line  normal  thereto  inclined  away  from  the  street  at 
an  angle  of  60  degrees  from  the  horizontal.    Nor  shall  any  part  of 


1 


25O  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

the  building  extend  beyond  the  allowed  height  of  the  building  at 
the  building  line  more  than  36  feet. 

The  height  limit  should,  I  believe,  be  a  function  of  the  width  of 
the  street  for  obvious  reasons,  but  multiplying  this  width  by  a  con- 
stant, such  as  one,  one  and  a  half,  or  two,  as  some  have  advocated, 
gives  results  that  are  ill-suited  to  the  requirements  of  New  York 
streets,  that  vary  from  30  to  200  feet  in  width,  as  a  little  calcula- 
tion will  show.  For  example,  if  once  the  width  of  the  street  be  the 
height  allowed,  and  the  average  floor  to  floor  story  height  be  assumed 
as  12  feet,  30-foot  streets,  of  which  there  are  a  number,  would  have 
to  be  confined  to  two-story  buildings,  40-foot  streets  to  three-story 
buildings,  and  even  the  usual  60-foot  street  would  allow  only  five 
stories  in  height.  New  York  City  would  never  tolerate  such  a 
drastic  restriction. 

Again,  if  the  modulus  be  one  and  a  half,  which  is  even  yet  a 
little  low  for  narrow  streets,  which  in  New  York,  on  account  of 
their  location,  are  and  probably  will  be  used  largely  for  warehouse 
and  storage  purposes,  yet  on  the  wide  streets  ranging  as  high  as 
200  feet  there  might  as  well  be  no  height  limit  at  all,  as  far  as  the 
fire  department  and  the  distribution  of  land  values  and  popula- 
tion go. 

The  device  of  using  the  square  root  of  the  street  width  as  the 
variable  and  a  constant  factor  of  12  gives  a  commercially  reason- 
able height  to  buildings  on  the  narrow  as  well  as  the  wide  streets. 

Permitting  on  the  top  of  buildings  three  stories  stepped  back 
under  the  60  degree  inclined  plane  gives  a  certain  latitude  to  the 
cube  without  materially  affecting  the  light  and  air  conditions  of  the 
street  and  opposite  buildings. 

2.  Excepting  on  corner  buildings,  no  part  of  any  rear  exterior 
wall  of  a  building  shall  be  nearer  to  the  rear  lot  line  than  the  fol- 
lowing : 

Above  the  first  story  up  to  50  feet,  10  per  cent  of  the  average 
depth  of  the  lot.  From  50  feet  to  100  feet,  15  per  cent  of  the 
average  depth  of  the  lot.  From  100  feet  to  150  feet,  20  per  cent 
of  the  average  depth  of  the  lot.  From  150  feet  upward,  25  per 
cent  of  the  average  depth  of  the  lot. 

Light  and  air  requirements  must  be  observed  on  the  rear  or 
yard  side  of  buildings  as  well  as  the  street  front,  although  the  space 
necessary  is  not  so  great. 

3.  Corner  plots,  i.  c,  plots  which  embrace  the  intersection  point 
of  two  streets,  may  be  considered  as  extending  from  the  corner  50 
feet  on  each  street  front  and  of  not  more  than  2500  square  feet  in 
total  area,  and  may  be  built  upon  over  the  entire  area  to  a  vertical 
height  not  exceeding  36  feet  in  excess  of  the  allowed  vertical  height 
at  the  building  line  of  the  highest  adjoining  building. 

This  paragraph  defines  a  corner  plot  and  provides  in  effect  that 
corners  may  be  built  vertically  at  the  building  line  as  high  as  the 
top  set-back  story  of  the  highest  adjoining  building.   This,  I  believe, 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


251 


will  obviate  the  difficulty  that  might  otherwise  be  experienced  in 
bringing  stepped-back  facades  of  unequal  heights  together  at  a 
corner,  and  will  make  possible  a  good  architectural  effect. 

On  account  of  the  advantages  in  respect  to  light  and  air,  it  is 
also  quite  logical  to  permit  of  building  to  greater  height  on  a  corner 
than  elsewhere. 

4.  Notwithstanding  the  foregoing,  one-fifth  of  the  total  area 
of  any  plot  may  be  built  upon  to  any  height. 

Recognizing  the  usefulness  of  the  occasional  tower  as  an  adver- 
tising asset  and  as  an  object  of  real  interest  and  possibly  of  great 
beauty,  I  believe  they  should  not  be  prohibited.  Towers,  however, 
should  be  so  restricted  that  the  temptation  to  build  them  in  great 
numbers  and  of  great  bulk  will  be  small,  for  in  case  of  fire  the  fire 
department  is  almost  powerless,  and  egress  to  tenants  is  most  diffi- 
cult. A  city  of  towers,  to  my  mind,  would  be  a  calamity.  I  do 
not  believe,  however,  under  any  scheme  this  would  ever  be  realized, 
as  the  tower  is  expensive  to  build  and  apt  to  be  most  uneconomical 
in  returns  to  the  owmer. 

5.  For  purposes  of  computation,  all  public  squares  and  parks 
shall  be  considered  as  streets  of  like  widths,  but  in  no  case  shall 
this  width  be  considered  as  greater  than  200  feet.  Streets  bordering 
the  waterfront  and  all  streets  greater  than  200  feet  in  width  shall 
be  considered  as  200  feet  in  width,  but  all  other  streets  shall  be 
measured  from  building  line  to  opposite  building  line. 

This  paragraph  sets  an  ulterior  limit  to  all  buildings,  excepting 
towers,  at  a  height  of  170  feet  at  the  cornice  line  and  36  feet  higher 
for  the  set-back  stories  and  corners,  although,  of  course,  this  height 
is  only  possible  to  buildings  in  the  favored  locations  of  park  and 
water  fronts  or  200-foot  streets. 

New  York  reasonably  demands  a  fairly  liberal  law,  due  to  the 
intensive  development  imposed  by  a  long  and  narrow  island,  and  an 
idealistic  provision,  such  as  might  be  suitable  to  a  new  city  in  an 
open  territory,  is  impracticable  and  impossible  here.  I  prefer  to 
acknowledge  the  existing  conditions,  and  neither  try  to  get  impos- 
sibly ideal  results  nor  to  hopelessly  give  up  the  fight  altogether. 


Statement  by  Mr.  L.  B.  Marks,  Representing  the  Illuminat- 
ing Engineering  Society,  July  14,  1913 

Artificial  illumination 

Mr.  Marks  said  that  artificial  lighting  when  properly  designed 
is  no  more  deleterious  to  eyesight  than  natural  light.  He  said  that 
artificial  illumination  could  be  supplied  without  eye-strain.  Natural 
light  is  very  frequently  misapplied  in  office  buildings  and  factories. 
Unshaded  light  sources  of  high  intrinsic  brightness  are  very  strain- 
ing to  the  eye. 


252  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

Mr.  Marks  said  that  in  the  present  state  of  the  art  of  illumina- 
tion it  is  impossible  to  lay  down  any  exact  laws  as  to  what  consti- 
tutes ideal  illumination.  He  said  that  as  yet  we  do  not  know  defi- 
nitely what  elements  should  be  considered  primal  in  installing  the 
best  lighting  system.  As  an  illustration,  he  cited  the  building 
erected  five  years  ago  by  the  Edison  Electric  Illuminating  Company 
of  Boston.  A  special  commission  of  illuminating  engineers  of  which 
he  was  one  was  appointed  to  design  the  lighting  of  this  building  with 
reference  mainly  to  three  considerations:  (1)  physiological  con- 
ditions; (2)  pleasing  appearance ;  and  (3)  economy.  The  commis- 
sion spent  almost  a  year  in  making  the  plans  for  this  building,  but 
the  art  has  advanced  so  rapidly  that  many  changes  would  be  made 
if  the  lighting  were  installed  new  to-day. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Benjamin  C.  Marsh,  Representing  the 
New  York  Congestion  Committee,  June  30,  1913 

Zoning 

Mr.  Marsh  said  that  the  zoning  system  was  necessary  for  New 
York.  The  city  is  composed  of  what  was  once  many  separate 
municipalities.  The  conditions  arising  from  this  fact  make  it  neces- 
sary to  differentiate  the  height  limit,  not  only  in  the  different 
boroughs,  but  also  between  different  parts  of  the  same  borough. 
The  height  ought  to  be  limited  with  reference  to  the  present  land 
value  and  the  present  state  of  development  of  the  respective  sections 
of  the  city.  The  height  ought  also  to  be  regulated  according  to  the 
kind  of  building. 

Mr.  Marsh  said  that  factory  districts  have  to  be  developed  in 
order  to  save  employees  the  cost  of  transportation.  In  planning  the 
development  of  South  Brooklyn  the  city  should,  if  necessary,  build 
a  railroad  to  haul  freight.  Transit  lines  used  to  carry  passengers 
during  the  day  might  be  used  to  carry  freight  at  night. 

Mr.  Marsh  said  that  additional  height  should  be  allowed  a  build- 
ing which  does  not  occupy  the  maximum  lot  area  permitted  under 
the  law. 

Congestion 

Mr.  Marsh  said  that  the  city  should  adopt  a  policy  of  social 
recreation  for  the  suburbs.  If  the  city  did  this,  the  population  would 
spread  out. 

Mr.  Marsh  said  that  50  per  cent  of  the  population  of  The  Bronx 
lives  on  about  5  per  cent  of  the  area  of  the  borough.  Multi-family 
houses  are  not  necessary  throughout  the  city.  Practically  the  whole 
city,  with  the  exception  of  the  lower  part  of  The  Bronx,  Manhattan 
and  several  districts  in  Brooklyn,  could  be  developed  with  two- 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


253 


family  detached  houses.  At  an  acreage  density  of  60  to  75  persons, 
this  will  house  all  of  the  city's  population  for  some  time. 

Mr.  Marsh  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  progressive  factory 
legislation  enacted  by  the  last  legislature  would  drive  many  factories 
from  the  city. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Nathan  Matthews,  Chairman  of  Commis- 
sion Which  Determined  the  Districts  Under  the  Present 
Height  Limitation  in  Boston,  Mass.,  October  3,  1913 

Adoption  of  the  Boston  height  limit 

Mr.  Matthews  said  that  the  real  estate  owners  were  not  awake 
when  the  A  and  B  law  was  passed  in  1904.  When  the  commission, 
appointed  by  the  mayor  to  district  the  city,  commenced  to  hold 
hearings,  the  real  estate  men  awoke  and  unanimously  opposed  any 
limitation  on  height.  The  owners  said  they  could  not  build  a  125- 
foot  building  that  would  pay ;  but  could  stand  no  cross  examination. 
When  the  1906  amendment  was  passed  permitting  an  intermediate 
height  of  between  80  and  100  feet  in  District  B,  all  the  real  estate 
owners  wished  to  have  their  property  included  within  the  inter- 
mediate height  limit  and  used  the  same  argument  over  again. 

Mr.  Matthews  said  that  the  land  values  in  District  B  have  in- 
creased since  the  height  limit  was  imposed.  The  values  in  District 
A  have  remained  stationary,  except  on  particular  streets.  High 
buildings  possess  no  advantage  if  they  are  all  of  a  uniform  height 
and  built  up  solidly.  The  height  of  buildings  had  been  limited  in 
Boston  with  reference  to  such  considerations  as  health,  sunlight, 
air  and  ventilation.    Esthetic  appearance  had  not  been  considered. 

Mr.  Matthews  advised  the  Commission  not  to  be  afraid  of  the 
real  estate  owners.  He  said  it  should  recommend  no  compromise. 
It  is  just  as  easy  to  get  through  a  logical  and  effective  measure  as  an 
ineffective  compromise.  He  said  that  the  real  estate  owners  who 
first  opposed  a  height  limit  in  Boston  now  heartily  support  it.  The 
height  limit  should  be  made  perpetual.  If  there  had  been  no  high 
buildings  in  Boston  at  the  time  the  height  of  buildings  was  limited, 
the  maximum  limit  would  have  been  placed  at  80  and  100  feet  for 
the  entire  city. 

Mr.  Matthews  said  that  under  the  law  a  building  over  125  feet 
in  height  could  not  be  re-erected  to  a  greater  height  than  125  feet. 
The  height  limit  had  caused  no  decline  in  values.  He  could  not 
say  it  had  caused  an  increase  in  values.  He  did  not  think  that  high 
buildings  were  a  good  investment.  He  said  that  rentals  in  Boston 
had  been  depressed  during  the  last  20  years  by  the  migration  into 
the  suburbs.  Suburban  development  has  been  made  possible  by 
improved  transit  facilities. 


254 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Statement  by  Mr.  Rudolph  P.  Miller,  Superintendent  Bureau 
of  Buildings,  Borough  of  Manhattan,  September  22,  1913 

Administrative  questions 

Mr.  Miller  said  that  a  law  limiting  the  number  of  persons  per 
unit  of  floor  area  should  be  enforced  in  the  same  manner  as  the  pres- 
ent law  with  reference  to  the  overloading  of  floors.  All  building 
inspection  should  be  centralized  in  one  single  department.  This 
would  result  in  great  economy  to  the  city.  The  law  contains  no 
provisions  relative  to  the  use  of  reenforced  concrete  construction. 
There  has  been  no  difficulty  in  enforcing  the  regulations  laid  down 
by  the  bureau  of  buildings  with  reference  to  it. 

Method  of  limiting  height 

Mr.  Miller  said  that  districting  by  height  was  desirable.  The 
limit  for  the  height  of  buildings  should  be  some  function  of  the 
street  width.  Concessions  in  the  way  of  greater  height  might  be 
allowed  where  a  greater  percentage  of  the  lot  area  than  the  required 
minimum  is  left  unoccupied. 

Light  and  ventilation 

Mr.  Miller  said  that  adequate  light  and  ventilation  were  the 
strongest  arguments  that  could  be  advanced  in  favor  of  limiting  the 
height  of  buildings.  Practicable  artificial  light  and  ventilation  can 
be  developed  to  satisfy  the  eyesight  and  to  provide  pure,  wholesome 
air  for  the  lungs,  but  they  cannot  fully  replace  sunlight  as  a  patho- 
genic agent.  Enameled  brick  walls  would  greatly  benefit  the  light- 
ing of  courts. 

Mr.  Miller  said  that  buildings  covering  from  90  to  95  per  cent 
of  the  lot  area  do  not  obtain  sufficient  light  and  ventilation.  The 
courts  in  the  new  law  tenements  were  about  the  best  that  the  city 
could  get  on  the  statute  books  at  present.  The  street  width  should 
not  have  anything  to  do  with  the  required  width  of  rear  courts. 

Exits 

Mr.  Miller  said  that  adequate  exit  facilities  should  be  provided 
within  the  building  in  each  case.  The  number  and  size  of  exits 
should  be  proportioned  to  the  number  of  occupants,  due  allowance 
being  made  for  the  fireproofness  of  the  building  and  the  character 
of  the  exit  facilities  that  arc  provided. 

Fire  walls 

Mr.  Miller  said  that  the  most  effective  safeguard  to  life  against 
fire  is  the  fire  wall.  Mary's,  he  said,  is  the  only  department  store 
in  the  city  that  is  provided  with  fire  walls.  When  Stern's  depart- 
ment store  was  constructed,  Mr.  Miller  insisted  on  its  being  equipped 
with  fire  walls  dividing  it  into  three  sections,  but  he  was  overruled 
by  the  board  of  examiners.   Mr.  Miller  said  that  the  building  depart- 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


255 


ment  made  concessions,  when  possible,  in  other  respects  to  hotels 
equipped  with  fireproof  doors  shutting  across  its  corridors. 

Tower  stairs 

Mr.  Miller  said  that  next  to  the  fire  wall,  the  tower  stair  is  the 
best  safeguard  to  life  against  fire.  Tower  stairs  should  be  in- 
stalled in  factories.  Tower  stairs,  in  most  cases,  could  be  made  to 
take  the  place  of  ordinary  stairs  for  every-day  use. 


Statement  by  Mr.  John  J.  Murphy,  Commissioner,  Tenement 
House  Department,  September  15,  1913 

Tenement  house  law 

Mr.  Murphy  said  that  the  Tenement  House  Commission  did 
not  get  what  it  wanted  when  the  Tenement  House  Law  was  enacted. 
The  court  areas  are  inadequate  on  the  lower  floors  of  five  and  six 
story  and  higher  buildings. 

Mr.  Murphy  said  that  he  had  been  mandamused  only  once  since 
he  became  commissioner  of  the  tenement  house  department,  and 
that  unsuccessfully.  The  Tenement  House  Law  is  mandatory  in 
practically  all  its  provisions.  It  allows  very  little  discretion  to  the 
department.  This  condition  was  described  as  necessary  at  the  time 
the  law  was  enacted  in  order  to  have  it  obeyed. 

Mr.  Murphy  said  that  the  city  should  have  more  power  in  con- 
trolling the  use  of  property.  The  Tenement  House  Law  checked 
building  for  a  time.  This  was  due,  however,  to  the  large  over- 
supply  of  tenements  erected  in  anticipation  of  t  the  law.  The  law 
itself  did  not  lower  realty  values. 


Statement  by  Mr.  John  Nolen,  Landscape  Architect,  Cam- 
bridge, Mass.,  October  4,  19 13 

Mr.  Nolen  said  that  the  traveler  probably  enjoys  the  high  build- 
ings in  New  York  more  than  anything  else.  Mr.  Nolen  thought  the 
city  should  permit  towers.  He  said  it  would  add  incentive  to  build- 
ing. Towers  will  add  distinctly  to  the  appearance  of  the  city.  They 
will  add  accent  and  emphasis  to  the  street.  He  thought  the  sug- 
gestion of  permitting  towers  on  lots  with  three  street  fronts,  one 
of  which  is  an  entire  block,  admirable. 


Statement   by    Mr.    Frederick    Law    Olmsted,  Chairman 
National  City  Planning  Conference,  June  6,  1913 

Method  of  limiting  height 

Some  of  the  aspects  of  the  problems  of  building  height  limita- 
tion now  before  your  Commission  lead  me  to  write  you  at  length 


256  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

in  regard  to  two  points  which  have  been  upon  my  mind  for  a  long 
time.  I  do  not  claim  any  originality  for  either  of  the  ideas,  but  I 
feel  them  to  be  important  enough  to  urge  upon  your  attention  on 
the  chance  that  your  Commission  has  not  yet  fully  considered  them. 
One  concerns  an  approximate  standard  of  adequate  natural  lighting 
for  buildings  in  a  city  as  a  basis  for  fixing  limitations  on  the  height 
of  buildings.  The  other  concerns  the  method  of  defining  such 
limitations. 

Light  and  ventilation 

I  do  not  consider  under  the  first  head  the  relation  of  other 
height  limitations  to  the  problem  of  congestion  of  streets  and  trans- 
portation lines  or  to  the  appearance  of  a  city,  but  only  their  relation 
to  the  proper  lighting  and  ventilation  of  buildings.  I  assume  that 
if  building  heights  were  so  regulated  that  every  room  in  every 
building  received  reasonably  good  natural  illumination  in  the  day- 
time under  normal  weather  conditions,  the  basis  for  good  natural 
ventilation  would  also  be  assured,  although  some  special  additional 
regulations  directed  specifically  toward  maintaining  good  ventila- 
tion might  be  desirable.  I  assume  also  that  it  is  a  less  hopeless  pro- 
ject to  attempt  to  ascertain  and  define  in  fairly  broad  terms  what 
conditions  are  requisite  to  good  natural  lighting,  and  to  support  the 
conclusions  by  a  convincing  set  of  facts,  than  to  make  a  similar 
definition  of  the  conditions  requisite  for  good  ventilation,  since  the 
action  of  air  currents  and  eddies  is  almost  unfathomably  complex 
as  compared  with  the  action  of  light  rays. 

I  believe  that  the  determination,  first,  of  fairly  definite  standards 
of  several  degrees* of  tolerably  good  and  intolerably  bad  natural 
lighting,  and,  second,  of  the  conditions  of  building  heights,  etc., 
which  under  normal  circumstances  will  result  in  those  several 
standard  degrees  of  lighting,  would  not  only  be  of  great  value  in 
arriving  at  sound  conclusions  about  the  proper  limitations  on  the 
height  of  buildings,  but  would  be  of  enormous  value  in  winning 
public  support  for  those  conclusions. 

I  understand  that  standards  of  measurement  of  the  illumination 
within  any  room  at  any  given  moment  can  be  determined  photo- 
metrically and  that  it  is  known  with  sufficient  accuracy  to  what 
practical  human  requirements  of  light,  for  various  purposes,  these 
measurable  standards  correspond.  Approximate  determination  can 
also  be  made  of  the  influence  upon  the  lighting  of  a  room  of  what 
may  be  called  the  interior  factors,  such  as  shape  and  size  of  room, 
reflecting  power  of  the  surfaces  within  the  room,  and  size,  position 
and  other  details  of  the  window  openings.  If,  therefore,  normal 
limiting  conditions  as  to  these  interior  factors  be  assumed,  it  should 
be  possible  to  determine  approximately  what  conditions  of  exterior 
lighting — that  is  to  say,  what  quantities  and  qualities  of  light 
impinging  upon  the  plane  of  the  outside  walls  in  which  the  windows 
are  set — are  necessary  to  secure  the  several  standard  degrees  of 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


257 


lighting  inside  the  buildings.  Quantities  and  qualities  of  light  in 
this  connection  mean  chiefly,  I  suppose,  the  direction,  angular  ex- 
tent and  luminosity,  first,  of  the  patches  of  sky  visible  from  each 
window,  and,  second,  of  walls  and  other  near-by  surfaces  reflecting 
any  considerable  quantity  of  light. 

The  hourly  changes  in  the  luminosity  of  the  sky  can  be  measured, 
and  allowed  for,  and  reduced  to  a  normal  condition  representing 
the  darkest  sky  under  which  it  is  reasonable  to  expect  good  natural 
illumination  inside  of  buildings. 

The  direction  and  angular  extent  of  the  patches  of  sky  visible 
from  each  window  are  determined  solely  by  the  height  and  form 
of  the  silhouette  of  the  opposite  buildings  (or  other  objects),  which 
in  turn  is  absolutely  controllable  by  building-height  limitations. 
The  entire  angular  extent  of  the  outlook  from  a  given  window 
which  does  not  consist  of  patches  of  sky  consists  of  the  surfaces 
of  buildings  (and  other  objects)  reflecting  indirect  light  to  the  win- 
dow; and  while  it  is  true  that  the  amount  of  light  coming  from  this 
source  is  largely  dependent  upon  the  color  and  texture  of  the  sur- 
faces themselves,  it  is  primarily  dependent  upon  the  amount  of 
direct  light  impinging  upon  those  surfaces,  which  in  turn  is  de- 
pendent upon  the  height  and  form  of  the  silhouette  of  the  buildings 
(etc.)  opposite;  in  other  words,  upon  the  building-height  limita- 
tions again. 

Sufficiently  approximate  allowances  can  be  made  for  variations 
in  the  reflecting  power  of  the  particular  walls  from  which  indirect 
light  is  returned  in  any  given  case,  just  as  allowances  can  be  made 
for  the  fluctuations  in  the  luminosity  of  the  sky;  and  indeed,  since 
the  color  and  texture  of  wall  surfaces  may  be  to  some  extent  con- 
trolled in  the  interest  of  the  public  health,  a  definite  determination 
of  the  influence  of  that  factor  upon  the  illumination  of  opposite 
interiors  under  various  normal  conditions  as  to  the  other  factors 
would  be  of  great  interest  and  value.  It  might  be  entirely  proper, 
for  example,  to  permit  a  building  of  light  color  and  high  reflecting 
power  to  be  erected  to  a  greater  height  than  a  building  of  dark  color 
and  great  light-absorbing  power.  But  aside  from  that  question, 
and  making  due  allowance  for  the  reflecting  power  of  the  building 
surfaces,  as  well  as  for  the  luminosity  of  the  sky  at  the  time  of 
observation,  it  is,  in  theory  at  least,  possible  to  determine  pretty 
definitely  what  limitations  upon  the  height  of  the  buildings  on  both 
sides  of  an  open  space  (whether  street  or  otherwise)  will  insure 
at  the  low  windows  in  any  of  the  flanking  buildings  the  quantity 
and  quality  of  light  necessary  for  the  standard  degrees  of  illumina- 
tion within  a  normal  room  behind  those  windows. 

I  believe  that  a  careful  series  of  measurements  and  experiments 
conducted  in  some  of  the  office  buildings  on  narrow  down -town 
streets  of  New  York,  where  the  lower  floors  patently  and  conspicu- 
ously lack  sufficient  natural  illumination  for  the  satisfactory  pursuit 
of  any  kind  of  human  occupation  and  where  the  upper  floors  are 


258  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

admirably  lighted,  would  afford  a  sound  basis  for  determining  upon 
a  series  of  building-height  limitations  calculated  to  insure,  respec- 
tively, several  standard  degrees  of  natural  lighting  in  buildings, 
each  degree  adapted  to  certain  conditions  of  use.  The  conditions 
might  vary  from  those  now  accepted  for  the  lower  stories  of  many 
hotels  and  office  buildings  in  New  York,  where  reliance  is  placed 
wholly  upon  artificial  light  and  forced  ventilation,  and  where  natural 
light  is  merely  a  pleasant  luxury  of  which  a  modicum  may  be  super- 
added occasionally,  to  those  required  for  the  most  satisfactory  type 
of  private  residence,  scientific  laboratory,  museum,  studio  or  indus- 
trial plant  where  the  natural  illumination  is  substantially  perfect. 

If  your  Commission  should  undertake  such  a  scientific  investiga- 
tion of  light  conditions  in  relation  to  building  height,  it  is  almost 
needless  to  say  that  the  methods  of  conducting  it  ought  to  be 
worked  out  with  the  greatest  care,  in  consultation  with,  if  not  under 
the  direction  of,  the  highest  scientific  authorities  in  the  country.  It 
would  be  very  easy  to  waste  a  good  deal  of  money  in  such  an  inves- 
tigation without  conclusive  results  through  failure  to  adopt  the 
right  methods  early  in  the  course  of  the  work. 

Districting 

Having  arrived  at  such  conclusions,  it  would  be  necessary  to 
decide  upon  districts  in  each  of  which  would  be  established  a  set  of 
building  regulations  guaranteeing  to  every  prospective  improver  of 
real  estate,  within  the  district  at  least,  a  certain  minimum  standard 
of  natural  lighting,  and  correspondingly  restraining  him  from  de- 
priving his  neighbors'  property  of  that  minimum  of  light.  Nat- 
urally in  fixing  the  boundaries  of  the  several  districts  and  deter- 
mining upon  the  regulations  suitable  to  each  the  highest  potential 
utility  of  each  locality  would  be  considered,  and  the  opinion  of  the 
majority  of  the  owners  of  real  estate  on  that  point  would  have  much 
weight,  although  the  interests  of  the  community  as  a  whole  should 
finally  control. 

Height  on  street  front 

The  second  point  I  want  to  bring  before  you  is  in  regard  to  the 
method  of  expressing  a  building-height  restriction.  There  are  se- 
rious objections  to  the  usual  method  of  a  uniform  flat  regulation 
upon  the  total  height,  even  when  that  height  is  made  to  depend  upon 
the  width  of  the  street  on  which  a  building  abuts.  So  far  as  con- 
cerns protection  from  excessive  obstruction  of  light,  such  regula- 
tions accomplish  no  more  than  others  which  interfere  much  less  with 
the  freedom  of  the  real  estate  owner.  They  may  even  accomplish 
less.  If  a  building  is  set  back  farther  from  the  street  line  than 
another,  it  would  DC  reasonable  to  allow  it  to  be  carried  up  to  a 
greater  height.  This  would  be  accomplished  by  a  rule  that  a  build- 
ing may  not  be  erected  to  a  height  greater  than  the  distance  of 
the  front  of  the  building  from  the  opposite  side  of  the  street  (or 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


259 


some  multiple  of  that  distance).  Still  greater  latitude  would  be 
permitted  without  serious  injury  to  the  light  conditions  by  a  rule 
prescribing  that  no  part  of  any  building  shall  be  erected  to  a  height 
greater  than  the  distance  of  that  part  of  the  building  from  the  oppo- 
site side  of  the  street  (or  some  multiple  of  that  distance).  Under 
this  rule  the  height  of  buildings  would  be  limited  not  by  a  horizontal 
plane,  as  in  most  rules,  but  by  an  inclined  plane  permitting  a  much 
greater  volume  of  building  without  cutting  off  any  more  direct  light 
from  the  street  or  lower  stories  of  opposite  buildings.  On  the 
esthetic  side  it  would  tend  toward  a  much  more  interesting  and 
agreeable  architectural  treatment  of  the  roofs  and  upper  stories 
than  the  flat  roof  that  now  prevails,  including  both  the  stepping  back 
of  upper  stories  with  terraces  or  balconies  and  the  use  of  steep- 
pitched  roofs  with  dormers.  But  the  main  point  is  that  it  would 
permit  the  maximum  economic  use  of  the  land  consistent  with  a 
given  degree  of  light  for  the  lower  stories. 

Rear  yards 

Thus  far  I  have  referred  only  to  the  safeguarding  of  the  light 
conditions  for  that  portion  of  private  property  fronting  upon  streets. 
Similar  regulations,  based  upon  the  same  principles  and  stated  in  a 
similar  way,  can  and  should  be  applied  for  safeguarding  the  access 
of  light  to  the  rear  of  private  property,  as  by  a  regulation  that  no 
part  of  any  building  shall  be  erected  to  a  height  greater  than  twice 
(or  some  other  multiple  of)  the  distance  of  that  part  from  the  rear 
of  the  lot  on  which  it  stands. 

It  is  of  course  necessary  to  define  explicitly  how  the  "  height 99  of 
any  part  of  a  building  is  to  be  measured  and  to  define  the  mean- 
ing of  "  rear  line  "  of  a  lot  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  applicable  in  a 
reasonable  way  to  the  most  irregular  case. 

Whether  in  some  classes  of  districts  provisions  should  be  made 
for  a  continuous  open  space  through  the  middle  of  a  block  even 
where  a  lot  runs  through  from  street  to  street  is  another  question, 
but  clearly  such  a  provision  should  not  be  universal,  because  it 
would  undesirably  hamper  the  economic  development  of  many 
classes  of  property. 

Towers 

I  should  be  disposed,  even  at  the  cost  of  a  somewhat  complicated 
supplement  to  the  kind  of  regulation  above  proposed,  to  permit  even 
greater  latitude  of  choice  to  the  property  owner  by  allowing  the 
erection  of  portions  of  buildings  to  an  indefinite  height  above  the 
limit  fixed  in  the  law,  provided  that  the  top  of  any  structure  or 
structures  on  other  portions  of  the  same  lot  are  kept  below  the 
permissible  height  to  a  corresponding  extent  and  in  such  a  manner 
that  the  adjacent  property  in  the  rear  and  upon  the  opposite  side 
of  the  street  upon  which  the  lot  fronts  will  receive  substantially  as 
much  light  as  if  the  standard  height  limitation  had  been  adhered  to 


260 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


throughout.  I  doubt  whether  any  fixed  method  of  measuring  such 
compensatory  variations  from  the  rule  can  be  defined  in  the  law  it- 
self, but  I  believe  that  the  duty  of  passing  upon  the  individual  cases 
could  safely  be  entrusted  to  a  building  commission  or  other  perma- 
nent judicial  body  with  proper  provision  for  hearings  and  notifica- 
tions and  with  provision  for  appeal  from  their  decision  fo  a  court 
of  review  within  a  limited  period  by  any  aggrieved  party.  This 
would  permit  the  construction  of  towers,  etc.,  to  any  height  in  any 
district  provided  enough  space  were  left  about  them  to  avoid  undue 
curtailment  of  light  from  neighboring  property. 

Classification  of  buildings 

Restrictions  such  as  I  have  discussed  above  would  protect  every 
land  owner  from  being  deprived,  by  the  action  of  any  other  land 
owner,  of  the  allowance  of  light  adopted  as  the  minimum  standard 
for  the  district  in  question.  They  would  not  in  any  way  interfere 
with  the  liberty  of  an  owner  of  a  deep  lot  to  build  a  deep  solid  mass 
containing  interior  rooms  very  inadequately  lighted  or  not  lighted 
at  all.  The  protection  of  the  community  against  such  types  of  build- 
ings as  are  injurious  to  the  people  occupying  them  is  a  totally  differ- 
ent proposition  from  the  prevention  of  injury  to  the  owners  and 
occupants  of  other  buildings  and  must  be  dealt  with  by  special  laws 
depending  upon  the  character  of  occupancy,  radically  different  reg- 
ulations being  required  for  dwellings,  factories,  theaters  and  ware- 
houses. That  is  a  subject  upon  which  I  will  not  attempt  to  enter 
here  although  it  is  obvious  that  in  a  city  having  wide  variations  in 
building-height  regulations  in  different  districts  it  might  be  necessary 
to  recognize  these  districts  in  the  tenement-house  laws  and  other 
special  building  regulations  based  upon  occupancy. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Robert  Anderson  Pope,  Landscape  Archi- 
tect, November  28,  19 13 

Districting 

There  arc  three  controlling  considerations  in  the  determining  of 
proper  height  of  building  for  a  great  city,  which  are,  first,  utilitarian; 
second,  hygienic ;  and,  third,  esthetic.  While  the  foregoing  is  given 
in  the  order  of  their  relative  importance  for  business  zones,  this 
order  changes  for  both  the  residential  and  the  civic  zone  and  becomes 
for  the  former,  first  hygienic  ;  second,  esthetic ;  and,  third,  utilitarian. 
For  the  civic  zones  the  order  of  the  importance  of  these  considera- 
tions again  changes  and  becomes,  first,  esthetic ;  second,  utilitarian, 
and,  third,  hygienic. 

It  is  self-evident  that  for  the  residential  zone  hygienic  consid- 
erations must  be  the  vital  and  primary  consideration  in  the  detcrmi- 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


26l 


nation  of  the  proper  height  of  buildings.  This,  in  other  words, 
means  the  protection  of  the  sources  of  light  and  air.  This  seems  to 
be  the  phase  of  the  subject  which  has  been  given  the  most  scientific 
consideration,  but  nevertheless  the  possibilities  of  this  aspect  of  the 
question  are  far  from  being  exhausted.  A  paramount  consideration, 
for  instance,  is  that  of  the  angle  at  which  the  sun's  rays  becomes  a 
hygienic  factor;  but  this,  however,  must  be  the  average  angle  at 
which  the  sun's  rays  are  effective  for  an  entire  year.  Upon  this 
factor  more  than  any  other  rests  the  solution  for  the  proper  height 
limitation  of  a  residential  community  in  a  built-up  city. 

Block  orientation 

In  undeveloped  residential  zones  which  are  ultimately  to  become 
closely  built  up  residential  sections  the  proper  direction  of  streets 
which  determine  the  orientation  of  city  blocks  becomes  the  most  im- 
portant medium,  except  that  of  actual  height  limitation,  for  effec- 
tively and  properly  protecting  the  sources  of  light  and  air.  An  il- 
lustration of  this  contention  is  found  right  here  in  Manhattan  Island, 
where  the  worst  possible  block  orientation  has  resulted  on  account 
of  the  desire  of  the  original  designers  of  the  city  plans  to  facilitate 
expeditious  access  to  both  the  East  River  and  the  Hudson  River. 
This  undoubtedly  was  a  desirable  object,  since  in  the  days  when  the 
initial  plan  was  made  water  traffic  was  the  principal  means  for  car- 
rying on  trade  and  commerce.  Specifically  the  outcome  of  this  de- 
sign has  been  that  approximately  half  of  the  residential  frontage  of 
New  York  City  is  without  sunlight  during  those  six  months  of  the 
year  when  the  need  of  it  is  most  vital  to  the  health  of  the  citizens. 

There  is  a  possible  modification  of  these  long  east  and  west 
blocks  which  may  be  effected  by  the  use  of  height  of  building  regu- 
lations. Reference  is  made  to  the  suggestion  of  dividing  the  long 
blocks  with  a  park  and  sidewalks  and  then  converting  the  rear  yards 
into  public  courts  with  grass  space  in  the  middle.  Where  this  could 
be  advisedly  undertaken  a  higher  residential  building  could  probably 
be  hygienically  permitted. 

Principles  of  districting 

Traffic  and  esthetic  considerations  in  relation  to  residential  zones 
are  only  secondary  and  minor  considerations,  because  the  proper 
width  of  street  necessary  to  effectively  and  permanently  secure  the 
essential  hygienic  results  in  conjunction  with  height  of  building  lim- 
itation will  prove  in  every  instance  adequate  to  meet  the  utilitarian 
and  esthetic  needs  of  this  type  of  zone.  The  third  main  type  of 
zone  which  has  been  designated  as  civic  has,  as  a  primary  consid- 
eration, neither  the  utilitarian  as  in  the  business  zone  nor  the  hy- 
gienic as  in  the  residential  zone,  but  rather  the  esthetic.  Here  it 
should  be  explained  that  the  use  of  the  word  zone  has  not  been 
meant  to  define  any  one  section  of  the  city,  but  rather  an  area  of 
influence  of  a  given  city  function,  and  as  such  one  zone  might  be 


262 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


found  within  another  and  similar  type  of  zone  near  by  but  separated 
by  another  type  of  zone. 

In  the  case  of  the  civic  zone  the  area  of  influence  which  the 
height  limitation  regulation  would  effect  is  likely  to  be  relatively 
restricted,  although  its  influence  should  extend  considerably  beyond 
the  group  of  buildings  comprising  such  a  zone. 

The  primary  functions  of  such  a  zone  must  be  the  furnishing  of 
such  sites  for  public  and  semi-public  institutions  as  will  give  the 
most  beautiful  and  dignified  results.  Such  provision  will  invariably 
provide  sufficient  space  for  all  traffic  needs  and  will  at  the  same 
time  meet  the  hygienic  demands. 

The  proper  extent  of  the  setting  most  desirable  for  a  group  of 
public  buildings  depends  upon  the  scientific  phase  of  the  question, 
which  has  been  given  but  little  attention.  Reference  is  made  to 
that  optic  angle  at  which  a  group  as  a  whole  of  important  buildings 
may  be  most  effectively  viewed.  As  this  angle  varies  more  or  less 
with  each  individual,  the  average  angle  must  be  the  one  to  be  used. 
This  has  been  determined  to  be  approximately  27 y2  degrees.  Of 
course  in  the  matter  of  great  towers  or  spires  this  angle  does  not 
need  to  be  considered,  since  a  momentary  lifting  of  the  head  is 
anticipated  as  necessary;  but  in  the  mass  of  buildings  comprising 
a  group  it  should  be  the  esthetic  goal  that  these  buildings  may  be 
conceived  with  their  greatest  effectiveness  without  involving  a  con- 
scious effort. 

A  great  esthetic  loss  has  hitherto  been  caused  by  failure  to  give 
due  consideration  to  this  aspect  of  this  problem.  Much  expenditure 
has  been  made  for  esthetic  effect  of  important  buildings,  but  has 
been  entirely  lost  through  inadequate  site,  which  fails  to  give  the 
view-point  with  the  optical  angle  herein  asserted  as  essential.  In 
the  permanently  built-up  sections  of  the  city,  such  as  City  Hall 
Square,  this  principle  can  only  be  applied  in  part  to  the  height  of 
entrances  or  to  the  treatment  of  the  first  few  stories  of  the  building 
on  account  of  the  excessive  height  and  the  lack  of  the  proper  amount 
of  setting  to  perceive  the  building  or  buildings  as  a  whole  or  in  a 
group.  This,  however,  will  not  prove  true  of  the  proposed  civic 
center,  which  should  be  designed  in  a  manner  conforming  to  the 
scientific  principles  herein  stated,  as  should  all  other  newly  developed 
civic  groups  such  as  come  under  this  heading. 

Conclusions 

1.  The  height  of  buildings  must  be  limited. 

2.  The  extent  of  the  limitation  must  vary  according  to  the 
functions  of  the  different  parts  of  the  city. 

3.  The  maximum  economic  traffic  load  which  the  business 
zones  of  a  city  and  their  arteries  can  carry  will  determine  the  various 
heights  of  the  commercial,  industrial,  wholesale  and  retail  sections. 

4.  This  in  turn  depends  upon  anticipating  all  the  possible 
mediums  for  increasing  traffic  capacity,  such  as  traffic  regulation, 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


263 


the  designing  of  the  considered  section,  and  the  final  width  of  the 
street. 

5.  Higher  buildings  may  be  permited  in  a  given  street  when 
abutting  property  owners  will  agree  to  widen  the  street  sufficiently 
to  accommodate  the  increased  traffic  of  higher  buildings. 

6.  The  angle  at  which  the  sun's  rays  become  an  effective 
hygienic  factor  is  the  dominant  factor  in  determining  the  proper 
height  of  buildings  in  closely  built-up  residential  districts. 

7.  In  unbuilt-up  districts  the  orientation  of  the  block  in  con- 
junction with  the  effective  angle  of  the  sun's  rays  will  be  found  the 
controlling  principle  in  determining  the  height  limitation  to  be  estab- 
lished for  such  a  section  when  fully  developed. 

8.  Esthetic  motives  must  be  the  dominant  factor  in  determining 
the  height  of  buildings  for  public  or  semi-public  groups.  The  most 
important  factors  in  the  limitation  of  the  heights  of  such  groups 
of  buildings  is  the  vertical  optical  angle  at  which  the  average  indi- 
vidual readily  conceives  an  object. 

9.  The  units  of  traffic  capacity  of  congested  zones  should  be 
determined  in  relation  to  a  unit  amount  of  floor  space. 

10.  An  investigation  should  be  made  into  all  possibly  advan- 
tageous traffic  regulations. 


Statement  by  Mr.  William  H.  Sayward,  Secretary  Master 
Builders  Association,  Boston,  Mass.,  October  3,  19 13 

Mr.  Sayward  said  the  height  limit  was  a  benefit  to  Boston.  He 
said  that  there  would  always  be  a  certain  number  of  owners  who 
would  object  to  any  height  limit.  He  said  that  at  the  time  of  its 
passage  the  Boston  height  limit  had  been  attacked  most  vigorously. 
Many  of  those  who  then  opposed  it  are  now  heartily  in  favor  of  it. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Bernard  L.  Shientag,  Assistant  Counsel 
New  York  Factory  Investigation  Commission,  June  26, 
1913 

Height  of  commercial  buildings 

On  the  subject  of  the  limitation  of  the  height  of  commercial 
buildings  I  have  but  little  evidence  to  offer.  I  know  practically 
nothing  about  the  esthetic  phase  of  the  problem.  As  a  result  of 
that  ignorance,  I  suppose  that  I  have  very  little  sympathy  for  any 
movement  to  limit  the  height  of  commercial  buildings  simply  for 
esthetic  reasons. 

Light  and  ventilation  in  factories 

As  to  lighting  and  ventilation,  it  appeared  from  the  investiga- 
tions conducted  by  the  Factory  Commission  that  the  lighting  and 


264  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

ventilation  was  much  better  in  the  high  modern  loft  buildings  than 
in  the  old  type  of  low  factory  buildings.  True,  the  latter  were  for 
most  part  of  antiquated  construction  or  were  converted  tenement 
houses,  so  the  height  of  the  building  could  not  be  considered  a 
criterion.  The  point  should  be  emphasized,  however,  that  every 
expert  who  appeared  before  the  commission  testified  that  natural 
ventilation  was  entirely  insufficient  and  that  the  only  way  proper 
ventilation  can  be  secured  is  by  mechanical  means.  That  being  the 
case,  it  would  hardly  seem  to  be  necessary  to  resort  to  the  drastic 
measure  of  limiting  the  height  of  factory  buildings  in  order  to 
bring  about  better  ventilation  therein. 

Fire  hazard  in  factories 

We  come  now  to  what  is  more  doubtful  ground,  and  that  is 
the  problem  of  the  fire  hazard  in  these  high  buildings.  It  has  been 
established  beyond  question  that  the  higher  the  building  the  greater 
the  hazard  to  life  in  the  event  of  fire.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  extension  ladders  of  the  fire  department  do  not  reach  beyond 
the  seventh  floor,  and  that  life  nets  and  other  devices  for  the  saving 
of  life  are  useless  when  a  fire  occurs  above  that  height.  The  higher 
the  building,  moreover,  the  longer  it  would  take  (assuming  that 
there  were  no  horizontal  exits)  the  occupants  to  reach  a  zone  of 
safety.  The  fact  that  a  high  loft  building  is  of  fireproof  construc- 
tion does  not  materially  lessen  the  life  hazard.  No  matter  how 
fireproof  the  building  itself  may  be,  the  contents  of  a  factory  build- 
ing are  more  or  less  inflammable,  and  it  is  the  burning  of  these 
contents  that  places  the  lives  of  the  occupants  of  the  building  in 
peril.  As  Chief  Croker  has  well  said :  "  The  term  fireproof,  when 
applied  to  our  factory  buildings,  does  not  mean  death-proof  and 
conflagration-proof." 

Is  it  necessary,  however,  to  limit  the  height  of  buildings  because 
of  this  increased  life  hazard?  The  opinion  of  practically  every 
expert  who  testified  before  the  commission  was  to  the  effect  that 
such  limitation  was  unnecessary  and  would  be  unwise ;  that  where 
there  was  a  special  hazard  due  to  the  height  at  which  manufacturing 
was  carried  on,  that  hazard  could  be  successfully  overcome  by 
special  requirements,  such  as  installation  of  automatic  sprinklers, 
the  construction  of  a  fire  wall  or  other  horizontal  means  of  exit, 
the  reduction  in  the  number  of  occupants  permitted  to  be  employed, 
the  use  of  fireproof  windows  to  prevent  the  spread  of  fire  from  one 
story  to  another,  and  other  similar  measures  and  devices. 

I  believe  that  the  proper  enforcement  of  laws  passed  as  a  result 
of  the  Factory  Commission's  recommendations  will  prevent  destruc- 
tion of  human  life  in  the  event  of  fire  in  many  present  type  build- 
ings regardless  of  heights.   To  summarize,  these  laws  require: 

1.  That  every  possible  precaution  be  taken  to  prevent  the 
occurrence  of  fire  (removal  of  rubbish,  prohibition  of  smoking, 
fireproof  receptacles). 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


265 


2.  That  measures  be  taken  to  prevent  the  spread  of  fire ;  in  the 
case  of  high  buildings  automatic  sprinklers  are  mandatory. 

3.  That  there  be  a  fire  alarm  system  to  notify  the  occupants  of 
the  building  of  the  occurrence  of  a  fire  and  of  its  location. 

4.  A  periodical  fire  drill  of  the  occupants  of  every  factory 
building  is  required.  Where  there  is  more  than  one  factory  in  a 
building,  there  must  be  a  cooperative  fire  drill. 

5.  That  proper  exit  facilities  be  provided.  The  emphasis  here 
is  placed  upon  interior  exits  and  fire  walls  rather  than  the  anti- 
quated and  useless  forms  of  outside  ladder  fire-escapes. 

6.  The  limitation  of  the  number  of  occupants  in  factory  build- 
ings. No  greater  number  of  persons  may  be  employed  on  any  one 
floor  than  can  escape  in  safety,  in  the  event  of  fire,  by  means  of  the 
exits  provided  for  that  floor. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Arthur  A.  Shurtleff,  Landscape  Archi- 
tect, Boston,  Mass.,  October  3,  191 3 

In  my  opinion  a  low  building  limit  like  that  in  Boston  will,  in 
time,  produce  a  monotonous  skyline,  as  most  buildings  will  reach 
the  low  limit.  In  case  a  very  high  limit  were  established,  it  is  fair 
to  say  that  only  a  few  buildings  would  reach  the  high  limit,  others 
would  fall  short  of  it  by  a  small  degree,  but  the  bulk  of  buildings 
would  not  attempt  to  reach  it.  Under  this  arrangement  a  skyline 
of  great  variety  would  result.  Doubtless  the  difficulty  of  fire  con- 
trol under  such  a  limit  would  increase.  In  my  opinion  the  present 
irregular  skyline  of  New  York  is  exceedingly  attractive,  and  it 
would  seem  to  me  a  pity  to  establish  the  limit  at  such  a  low  level 
that  all  the  buildings  of  the  city  would  soon  reach  that  uniform 
plane. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Robert  E.  Simon,  Vice-President  Henry 

MORGENTHAU  Co.,  SEPTEMBER  26,  I9I3 

Argument  for  height  limitation 

Mr.  Simon  said  a  height  limit  was  fundamental  and  essential  to 
the  city.  High  buildings  make  for  congestion  and  increase  the  cost 
of  policing  the  city  and  protecting  it  against  fire.  He  would  limit 
the  height  of  all  buildings.  An  effective  height  limit  would  prob- 
ably reduce  real  estate  values  in  the  beginning  in  certain  sections 
where  high  buildings  have  already  been  erected.  The  present  own- 
ers of  high  buildings  would  have  an  unfair  advantage  over  other 
owners  if  the  height  of  buildings  were  limited.  High  buildings 
might  be  subjected  to  a  surtax  above  a  certain  height. 

He  said  that  New  York  has  to  be  made  an  attractive  place  for 
visitors  or  they  won't  come  here.  The  Fifth  Avenue  shops  cannot 
exist  on  local  trade.    The  erection  of  tall  buildings  in  the  center  of 


266 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


residential  blocks  has  destroyed  property  worth  hundreds  of  mil- 
lions. The  fact  that  homes  are  not  protected  in  New  York  is  driv- 
ing the  people  out  into  the  suburbs.  The  unregulated  height  of 
buildings  has  made  real  estate  an  unstable  investment  in  New  York. 

Fifth  Avenue — loft  buildings 

He  said  that  the  tall  loft  buildings  were  a  mistake  from  begin- 
ning to  end.  They  were  bad  for  the  manufacturer  in  that  they  were 
situated  far  from  the  river  front  and  the  railways.  This  results 
in  great  loss  in  trucking.  The  freight  elevators  are  always  con- 
gested and  occasion  long  waits.  The  old  loft  district  on  the  lower 
West  Side  with  its  three  to  six  story  lofts  save  most  of  this  waste. 

Zoning 

Mr.  Simon  said  he  never  saw  a  zoning  scheme  that  would  per- 
mit a  city  to  develop  in  a  normal  manner.  There  is  not  a  man  liv- 
ing who  could  discount  the  future  and  say  what  land  should  be  in- 
cluded in  the  different  zones.  He  said  he  would  make  residential 
districts.  Mr.  Simon  said  a  court  of  appeals  to  lift  the  restrictions 
in  the  zones  when  it  became  necessary  would  be  desirable. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Henry  Atterbury  Smith,  Representing 
New  York  Chapter  of  the  American  Institute  of  Archi- 
tects, November  3,  1913 

Tenement  houses 

Our  present  tenement  law  already  limits  the  height  of  the  build- 
ing and  regulates  the  portion  of  the  lot  that  must  be  uncovered. 
This  is  a  health  measure,  not  due  to  esthetics  or  convenience.  As 
a  result  the  majority  of  tenements  are  five  or  six  stories  high  and 
cover  70  per  cent  of  an  interior  lot.  The  uncovered  area  is  dis- 
tributed among  rear  yards,  interior  courts  and  courts  that  open  to 
the  street  or  yard.  These  restrictions  are  less  burdensome  and 
more  effectively  beneficial  in  the  case  of  large  wide  properties  than 
of  smaller  narrower  ones. 

It  would  seem  that  the  best  solution  of  a  six-story  tenement  as 
to  uncovered  areas  and  court  arrangements  should  be  found  among 
the  properties  of  the  City  and  Suburban  Homes  Co.,  or  Model 
Fireproof  Tenement  Co.,  or  the  various  economic  open-stair  tene- 
ment types,  owing  to  the  fact  of  their  unusual  opportunity  to  study 
all  forms  and  to  the  fact  that  they  selected  large  properties  most 
advantageous  to  housing  results.  In  these  there  are  units  of  100 
feet  frontage  or  over  and  all  are  of  the  hollow  block  type — that  is, 
the  rooms  not  facing  a  street  or  a  yard  are  arranged  about  a  large 
interior  court. 

It  is  only  necessary,  however,  to  visit  any  of  these  buildings  to 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  lower  apartments  facing  the  court 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED  267 

have  inadequate  light,  and  yet  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  these 
are  the  best  types  for  light  and  ventilation ;  what  obtains  in  narrower 
properties  is  worse. 

Therefore  to  better  light  and  ventilate  the  less  desirable  lower 
rooms  it  is  obvious  that  the  height  of  the  building  should  be  de- 
creased or  the  amount  of  the  lot  that  may  be  covered  should  be 
further  restricted,  or  both. 

But  by  making  these  restrictions  most  desirable,  from  the  health 
point  of  view,  the  income  of  the  property  is  reduced,  or  the  rent 
increased  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  the  restriction.  Soon  a 
point  would  be  reached  when  the  commercial  builder  would  be  no 
longer  attracted  and  tenements  would  cease  to  be  erected.  Housing 
the  poor  in  many  European  cities  has  to  be  performed  by  the 
municipality  at  public  expense.  We  may  be  approaching  such  a 
state  of  affairs  in  New  York;  surely  we  will  be  if  we  make  too 
many  or  too  radical  restrictions.  So  we  should  consider  these  mat- 
ters with  a  due  knowledge  of  their  effect. 

Improvements  in  the  tenement  house  law 

There  is  among  tenement  house  owners  already  a  feeling  that 
our  tenement  department  as  at  present  administered  is  unnecessarily 
interfering  with  property  rights.  It  would  be  well  to  weigh  the 
advisability  of  reconsidering  our  tenement  law,  of  reducing  the 
rigor  and  burden  in  some  places  and  of  directing  attention  to  some 
more  lasting  and  meritorious  regulations. 

For  instance,  by  examining  the  three  groups  above  mentioned 
there  will  be  found  some  buildings  wherein  the  entrance  to  the  100- 
foot  unit  is  through  an  open  passage  to  the  court.  This  materially 
helps  the  ventilation,  but  not  the  light.  Again,  some  used  a  con- 
struction which  would  obviate  the  necessity  of  light-obstructing, 
theft-inviting  fire-escapes.  Again,  some  used  exterior  open  stairs, 
thus  reducing  the  dangers  of  contagious  and  infectious  diseases 
and  also  adding  a  considerable  volume  of  fresh  air  to  the  uncovered 
space.  Now  the  building  containing  all  these  advantages  from  an 
average  health  point  of  view  might  be  more  acceptable  to  the  city 
and  to  the  commercial  builder  (upon  whom  we  have  to  look  for 
the  majority  of  our  tenements)  than  one  of  a  less  healthful  type, 
for  instance,  a  story  lower  or  of  less  covered  area. 

It  would  doubtless  be  a  benefit  to  the  tenement  dwellers,  which 
would  show  in  our  city's  death  rate,  if  the  average  height  of  tene- 
ments were  reduced  two  stories  or  the  amount  of  lot  that  could  be 
covered  restricted  "to  about  50  per  cent;  but  before  such  a  hardship 
upon  the  commercial  building  enterprise  is  approached  we  should 
carefully  consider  whether  or  not  our  present  tenement  law  has 
already  entertained  all  the  health  measures  availabfe  which  will  not 
upset  values. 


268 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Statement  by  Mr.  Howard  C.   Smith,  Representing  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  June  12,  1913 

Assessment  of  damages 

Mr.  Smith  suggested  that  in  place  of  a  restriction  as  to  height, 
a  scheme  of  damages  to  adjoining  property  be  evolved,  the  amount 
to  be  determined  by  the  height  of  the  building,  the  proximity  of 
property  damaged,  and  the  value  of  the  property  affected,  and  to 
this  end  he  suggested  that  it  might  be  possible  to  run  an  imaginary 
angle,  say  at  45  degrees,  from  the  top  of  any  building  and  in  every 
direction,  and  to  award  damages  to  such  property  as  fell  within 
that  angle,  the  amount  to  be  dependent  upon  the  mean  height  of 
the  imaginary  line  extending  over  the  property. 

Mr.  Smith  has  not  yet  had  an  opportunity  to  find  out  whether 
such  a  law  could  be  made  constitutional  or  not,  and  has  merely 
made  this  as  a  suggestion  offered  for  consideration,  and  which 
from  his  point  of  view  will  come  nearer  to  securing  fair  treatment 
to  land  owners  generally. 

It  is  probable  that  such  a  rule  could  not  be  made  applicable  to 
buildings  now  erected,  or  whose  plans  have  been  already  filed  with 
the  building  department,  but  if  some  method  of  graduated  damage, 
payable  over  a  term  of  years,  could  be  devised  to  ameliorate  the 
position  of  those  property  owners  whose  property  has  already  suf- 
fered in  value  by  reason  of  adjacent  high  buildings  it  would  be 
eminently  desirable. 


Statement  by  Mr.  John  H.  Storer,  Representing  Wood,  Har- 
mon &  Co.,  Boston,  Mass.,  October  3,  191 3 

Mr.  Storer  said  he  favored  the  height  limit.  It  made  for  stability 
in  land  values.  The  height  limit  in  Boston  lie  considered  a  wise 
one.    It  has  been  advantageous  to  most  owners. 


Statement  by  Mr.  R.  Cltpston  Sturgis,  President  Boston 
Society  of  Architects,  Boston,  Mass.,  October  3,  1913 

Boston  height  limits 

Mr.  Sturgis  said  that  Boston  had  felt  its  way  to  limiting  the 
height  of  buildings,  and  had  gone  from  one  step  to  another.  The 
progress  made  in  height  limitation,  he  said,  had  been  prompted  by 
injury.   The  present  height  limit  is  too  high  in  the  narrow  streets. 

Mr.  Sturgis  said  that  if  an  indefinite  height  were  permitted,  the 
owners  of  one- fourth  of  a  block  could  by  erecting  high  buildings 
detrimentally  affect  the  values  of  the  other  three-fourths. 

Mr.  Sturgis  said  there  was  no  doubt  that  the  height  limit  in 
District  B  could  in  the  light  of  past  experience  be  improved  upon, 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


269 


but  how  he  could  not  say.  Buildings  higher  than  125  feet  would 
undoubtedly  have  been  erected  in  District  A  had  it  not  been  for 
the  height  limit.  The  buildings  erected  in  this  district  since  the 
height  limit  was  enacted  have  practically  all  been  erected  to  a  height 
of  125  feet.  The  height  limit  has  certainly  not  affected  the  values 
in  any  detrimental  way  in  District  B. 

Towers 

Mr.  Sturgis  said  that  a  fairly  definite  economic  height  limit 
existed  in  the  case  of  towers.  Towers  will  not  bring  in  a  financial 
return  above  a  certain  height.  The  number  of  elevators  has  to  be 
considerably  increased  above  a  certain  height;  as  the  amount  of 
space  occupied  by  these  elevators  on  the  ground  floor  would  be  very 
large,  the  height  of  towers  would  be  determined  by  an  economic 
limit.  Mr.  Sturgis  saw  no  particular  reason  why  towers  covering 
20  or  25  per  cent  of  the  lot  area  should  not  be  permitted  provided 
they  would  not  injure  neighboring  property. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Frank  D.  Veiller,  Representing  the  Fifth 
Avenue  Association,  June  19,  1913 

Fifth  Avenue 

The  high-class  retail  business  for  which  Fifth  Avenue  is  so 
well  known  is  the  most  sensitive  and  delicate  organism  imaginable, 
depending,  first,  on  the  exclusiveness  of  the  neighborhood;  second, 
on  its  nearness  to  the  homes  of  the  rich  and  the  large  hotels;  and, 
third,  on  its  lack  of  congestion,  especially  on  the  sidewalks,  so  that 
the  customers  may  not  be  crowded  or  jammed  in  a  hurlyburly 
crowd  on  their  way  to  and  from  the  different  shops. 

The  wholesale  section,  on  the  other  hand,  is  crowding  the  retail 
section  as  closely  as  the  retail  invades  the  residence  section,  the 
desire  being  to  be  as  close  as  possible  to  the  exclusive  retail  shops. 

Fifth  Avenue,  below  34th  Street  as  far  as  23d  Street,  is  already 
doomed.  Below  23d  Street  it  is  irretrievably  lost.  Of  prime  im- 
portance is  the  preserving  of  Fifth  Avenue  from  42d  Street  to  59th 
Street.  The  loft  buildings  have  already  invaded  the  side  streets 
with  their  hordes  of  factory  employees.  If  an  adequate  move  were 
made  restricting  the  occupancy  of  the  buildings  so  that  no  manu- 
facturing could  be  done  either  on  Fifth  Avenue  or  from  Madison 
Avenue  over  to  Sixth  Avenue,  the  matter  would  be  solved.  The 
employees  from  these  loft  buildings  cannot  be  controlled.  They 
spend  their  time — lunch  hour  and  before  business — on  the  avenue, 
congregating  in  crowds  that  are  doing  more  than  any  other  thing 
to  destroy  the  exclusiveness  of  Fifth  Avenue.  If  the  exclusiveness 
and  desirability  of  Fifth  Avenue  are  destroyed,  the  value  of  real 
estate  on  Fifth  Avenue  will  depreciate  immediately.  As  a  concrete 
example  of  this  take  the  property  on  the  west  side  of  Fifth  Avenue 


2J0  HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 

between  30th  and  31st  Streets.  About  three  or  four  years  ago  this 
property  was  actually  sold  for  $380,000,  and  to-day  the  property 
cannot  be  sold  for  $240,000. 

This  is  not  a  plea  entirely  for  the  property  owners,  but  for  the 
preservation  of  Fifth  Avenue,  which  is  the  most  wonderful  shopping 
street  in  this  country,  and  in  many  respects  more  wonderful  than 
anything  in  Paris  or  London.  It  is  certainly  of  national  importance, 
and  we  are  only  doing  our  obvious  duty  in  preserving  it. 

In  case  the  occupancy  of  the  building  cannot  be  regulated  either 
through  the  factory  commission  or  otherwise,  the  next  best  step 
would  be  in  the  limitation  of  the  height  of  buildings  in  this  zone, 
thereby  diminishing  the  volume  of  operatives  and  making  a  uniform 
skyline.  From  a  business  standpoint  this  would  be  no  hardship  on 
the  owners  of  property,  for  the  most  paying  investment  to-day  for 
the  section  under  discussion  is  a  six-story  building.  A  large  office 
building  and  a  large  hotel,  owing  to  the  nature  of  their  occupancy, 
are  no  disadvantage.  A  first-class  hotel,  on  the  contrary,  is  a 
decided  advantage. 

If  the  scope  of  this  Commission  is  broad  enough,  I  would  recom- 
mend the  limitation  of  the  height  of  buildings  through  the  city  into 
zones,  so  that  the  different  sections  may  be  treated  in  a  manner  that 
will  comply  with  the  various  local  problems.  For  instance,  if  the 
Greenwich  section  and  the  old  dry-goods  section  above  Chambers 
Street  were  treated  as  a  manufacturing  center,  this  would  work  out 
to  the  salvation  of  the  neighborhood.  The  tenements  of  the  East 
Side  are  furnishing  the  operatives  for  the  manufactures  of  this 
city,  and  if  the  factories  could  be  in  the  neighborhood  more  con- 
venient to  their  homes,  which  this  would  do,  it  would  furnish 
tenants  for  buildings  that  are  now  nine-tenths  vacant. 

Comparison  of  values  north  of  42d  Street  on  the  side  streets 
between  Fifth  and  Madison  Avenues  as  opposed  to  those  between 
Fifth  and  Sixth  Avenues  will  indicate  the  value  of  property  occu- 
pied for  exclusive  business  and  that  occupied  for  loft  buildings. 
Between  Fifth  and  Madison  Avenues  property  is  worth  $4500  and 
11])  a  front  foot,  for  in  these  blocks  there  are  practically  no  loft 
buildings.  The  buildings  are  for  retail  businesses,  while  between 
Fifth  and  Sixth  Avenues  there  are  a  number  of  loft  buildings 
already  in,  which  have  determined  the  occupancy  of  the  balance  of 
these  blocks,  and  the  value  of  real  estate  is  from  $2700  a  front  foot 
to  as  high  as  $5000,  depending  on  its  nearness  to  Fifth  Avenue. 

These  are  the  conditions  as  they  exist  to-day,  and  if  something 
is  not  done  speedily  to  check  further  inroads  the  condition  that  now 
exists  below  23d  Street  will  in  a  few  years  prevail  on  Fifth  Avenue 
north  of  34th  Street,  and  Fifth  Avenue,  as  now  known,  will  be  lost 
to  this  city  forever. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


271 


Statement  by  Mr.  Leslie  C.  Wead,  Representing  the  Chamber 
of  Commerce,  Boston,  Mass.,  October  3,  1913 

Boston  height  limits 

The  limitation  of  the  height  of  buildings  was  first  made  in  con- 
sequence of  the  erection  of  certain  buildings  in  the  financial  dis- 
trict to  a  height  that  seemed  to  be  excessive  and  it  was  realized  that 
if  no  limitation  were  made  the  result  would  be  serious  congestion 
in  the  narrow  streets  and  the  shutting  off  of  light  and  air  from 
existing  buildings  and  from  the  lower  portions  of  other  buildings 
which  might  be  erected. 

The  subsequent  limitation  on  Beacon  Hill  was  in  order  to  avoid 
the  complete  shutting  off  of  the  view  of  the  State  House  dome, 
which  was  threatened  by  the  erection  of  one  high  apartment  house 
on  the  southwesterly  slope  of  the  hill.  The  law  which  authorized 
the  division  of  the  city  into  districts,  known  as  A  and  B,  in  which 
the  limitations  were  respectively  125  feet  and  80  feet,  was  passed 
in  consequence  of  the  erection  of  a  few  buildings  in  the  residential 
section  to  the  former  limit  of  125  feet  and  fear  that  other  high 
buildings  might  be  erected  which  would  injure  neighboring  prop- 
erty. The  height  limit  of  80  feet  in  District  B  is  not  too  low  when 
the  value  of  the  land  is  taken  into  consideration,  as  the  building 
value  should  not  be  more  than  twice  the  land  value. 

Effect  on  fireproof  buildings 

In  District  B,  having  a  limit  of  80  feet,  the  general  building  law 
requires  buildings  more  than  75  feet  in  height  to  be  fireproof. 
Many  owners,  therefore,  prefer  to  build  of  second-class  construc- 
tion to  a  height  of  75  feet  rather  than  of  first-class  (fireproof)  con- 
struction where  the  limit  is  80  feet,  although  in  the  latter  by  reduc- 
ing the  height  of  stories  one  more  story  might  be  obtained.  The 
difference  in  cost  would  be  very  substantial,  some  types  of  buildings 
being  nearly  double  for  the  fireproof  construction,  thus  requiring 
a  larger  investment  without  a  corresponding  increase  in  rental 
values. 

The  residential  section  of  the  city  known  as  District  B  includes 
the  Back  Bay  section,  which  is  all  filled  land,  and  it  is  necessary 
to  drive  piles  to  support  the  foundations.  It  is  therefore  necessary 
to  use  special  precautions  in  the  erection  of  high  buildings  to  have 
sufficient  piling,  as  otherwise  the  buildings  would  be  insecure.  An 
illustration  of  this  is  seen  in  the  tower  of  the  Old  South  Church 
which  was  built  without  sufficient  piling  and  is  said  to  be  three 
feet  out  of  plumb. 

Height  limit  a  benefit  to  real  estate  values 

A  reasonable  restriction  in  the  limit  of  height  does  not  affect 
land  values  detrimentally  if  it  is  applied  uniformly  to  all  buildings 
within  the  district. 


272 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Land  values  in  District  A  vary  from  $25  or  $30  per  square  foot 
in  the  outlying  sections,  while  in  the  heart  of  the  retail  and  finan- 
cial district  values  are  generally  from  $100  to  $200  per  square  foot 
and  in  a  few  instances  specially  desirable  corners  have  been  valued 
at  $300  per  square  foot. 


Statement  by  Mr.  W.  B.  P.  Weeks,  Boston,  Mass.,  September 

29,  1913 

I  think  the  height  of  buildings  law  in  the  city  of  Boston  is  a 
very  fair  one  and  for  the  interests  of  the  city.  I  should  oppose 
any  increase  in  the  height  or  any  change  in  the  present  law.  I 
think  it  is  a  great  mistake  to  allow  buildings  above  the  height  estab- 
lished in  Boston.  It  is  bound  to  prove  a  great  injury  in  the  end 
to  any  city  that  allows  unlimited  height,  and  it  is  proving  so  in 
New  York.  A  height  limit  should  have  been  established  there  years 
ago.  The  Massachusetts  law  is  a  good  one  and  has  proved  so  here 
in  Boston.   I  see  no  reason  for  changing  it. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Franklin  H.  Wentworth,  Boston,  Mass., 

August  14,  191 3 

Replying  to  your  letter  of  August  nth  requesting  a  statement 
of  opinion  in  the  matter  of  limitation  of  the  heights  of  buildings 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  I  would  state  that  I  have  long  been  on 
record  as  in  favor  of  such  action.  The  limitation  of  building  heights 
in  the  city  of  Boston  is  already  demonstrating  its  advantages,  in 
distributing  desirable  and  beautiful  new  buildings  over  a  consider- 
able area,  thus  preventing  undue  congestion  and  lessening  the  fire 
hazard,  and  in  inducing  the  architects  to  give  especial  attention  to 
beautifying  facades. 

Argument  for  a  height  limitation 

The  esthetic  values  are  obviously  not  those  paramount,  however, 
in  the  consideration  of  this  problem  respecting  New  York  City. 
Manhattan  Island  is  of  limited  area,  and  such  necessary  features 
as  light,  air,  sanitation  (capacity  of  sewers,  etc.)  and  transporta- 
tion facilities  cannot  be  adequately  provided  if  buildings  of  unlim- 
ited height  providing  accommodations  for  thousands  under  one 
roof  continue  to  be  erected  without  restriction.  The  lower  stories 
of  many  buildings  are  already  undesirable  through  lack  of  sufficient 
light  and  air  and  it  is  conceivable  that  the  continued  "  canyonizing  " 
of  the  streets  may  eventually  operate  to  injure  the  permanent  com- 
mercial value  of  the  sky-scraper. 

Your  problem  is  complicated  by  the  fact  that  your  landlords 
have  already  been  permitted  to  go  so  far  in  the  erection  of  these 
high  buildings,  and  those  prospective  builders  who  have  invested  in 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


273 


unimproved  or  poorly  improved  real  estate  under  past  and  present 
conditions  will  oppose  restriction.  I  assume  that  whatever  may  be 
done  will  be  largely  the  result  of  a  compromise  between  public 
servants  and  conflicting  private  interests,  and  that  therefore  all 
the  suggestions  you  desire  from  me  are  those  relating  to  technical 
phases  of  the  subject. 

Several  methods  are  advocated  by  engineers  who  have  given 
thought  to  the  subject  of  regulating  building  heights.  An  absolute 
limit  of  height  is  the  easiest  solution,  but  it  may  not  be  the  best. 
Many  American  cities  have  adopted  it. 

Set-backs 

The  offsetting  or  "  stepping  "of  the  faqades  with  each  increase 
in  height  finds  favor  with  some.  This  plan  admits  more  light  and 
air  to  the  street,  but  does  not  effectually  limit  building  heights  nor 
relieve  congestion.  These  objections,  though  in  a  lesser  degree, 
apply  to  the  proposition  to  permit  a  portion  of  the  building  to  ex- 
ceed the  established  limit  of  height  in  the  form  of  a  tower. 

Districting 

The  ideal  plan  is  to  regulate  the  height  of  all  buildings  in  a  zone 
or  district  to  the  limit  best  suited  to  that  particular  section  and  to 
limit  within  such  district  itself  the  height  of  each  building  in  pro- 
portion to  the  width  of  the  street  or  plaza  upon  which  it  fronts. 
This  plan  is  obviously  more  difficult  to  administer  than  the  others, 
and  might  require  a  permanent  commission  with  more  or  less  arbi- 
trary powers ;  but  all  the  values,  both  common  and  esthetic,  might 
be  conserved  under  it,  the  entire  city  being  considered,  all  parts  in 
relation  to  the  others. 

Fire  hazard  of  sky-scrapers 

I  do  not  consider  the  sky-scraper  especially  hazardous  from  the 
standpoint  of  fire,  if  it  is  built  and  finished  entirely  of  fire-resistive 
materials  and  fully  equipped  with  modern  fire-extinguishing  appa- 
ratus;  but  I  do  consider  it  hazardous  from  the  human  standpoint 
when  it  is  multiplied,  as  in  lower  Manhattan,  to  a  degree  producing 
a  congestion  which  visits  daily  discomfort  upon  the  citizens  and 
may  under  special  conditions  result  in  untold  horror  and  loss  of 
life. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Alfred  T.  White,  Member  Tenement  House 
Commission  and  Tenement  Owner,  September  16,  1913 

Tenement  house  law 

Mr.  White  said  that  the  Tenement  House  Commission  of  1901 
was  obliged  to  confine  its  attention  to  tenement  houses ;  in  his  opin- 
ion there  was  no  reason  why  hotels  and  apartment  hotels  should 


274 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


not  be  subjected  to  similar  restrictions.  His  suggestion  was  that 
the  Heights  of  Buildings  Commission  should  include  all  residential 
buildings  in  one  class  and  should  not  undertake  to  recommend  spe- 
cial changes  in  the  Tenement  House  Law  or  affecting  tenement 
houses  alone. 

Effect  of  the  tenement  house  law  on  mortality 

Mr.  White  attributed  one-third  to  one-half  of  the  decrease  in 
the  death  rate  of  the  city  to  the  successive  tenement  house  laws. 
He  credited  the  remainder  of  the  gain  to  the  work  of  the  health  de- 
partment, to  cleaner  streets  and  the  cooperative  work  of  private 
benevolence. 

Other  effects  of  present  laws 

Almost  of  necessity  the  courts  required  under  the  present  law 
are  paved.  This  deprives  children  of  necessary  playgrounds  and 
results  in  an  increased  demand  for  public  parks  and  public  play- 
grounds. Builders  should  be  encouraged  to  cover  less  of  the  lot 
and  leave  more  open  space.  He  stated  that  the  Brooklyn  buildings 
in  which  he  was  interested,  housing  over  five  hundred  families, 
covered  a  little  less  than  half  of  the  lot  area  and  left  liberal  yard 
space. 

Frame  tenements 

Mr.  White  stated  that  in  his  opinion  no  frame  tenements  what- 
ever should  be  erected  within  the  city  limits.  Such  tenements  pay 
very  trifling  taxes,  while  each  family  residing  in  them  requires 
the  same  expenditure  for  schools,  fire  protection,  police,  etc. ;  so 
that  each  family  brought  to  the  city  and  thus  housed  adds  to  the 
city's  burdens. 

Rentals 

Mr.  White  said  there  were  districts  in  Brooklyn  in  which  rents 
had  remained  nearly  stationary  for  twenty  years,  while  in  some 
districts  of  Manhattan  rents  have  doubled  in  the  same  period.  In 
Brooklyn  the  stagnation  was  largely  in  the  waterfront  districts  and 
owing  to  the  discontinuance  of  some  of  the  ferries.  Thousands 
of  families  in  the  crowded  districts  of  Manhattan  could  be  much 
better  housed  at  much  lower  rents  in  Brooklyn  within  walking  dis- 
tance of  the  present  subway. 

Set-backs 

On  narrow  streets,  Mr.  White  said,  owners  should  be  obliged 
to  set  their  buildings  back  from  the  street  so  that  the  effective  width 
would  in  no  case  be  less  than  60  feet. 

Districting 

The  present  limitation  of  heights,  so  far  as  he  knew,  is  confined 
to  non-fireproof  tenement  houses,  is  uniform  for  the  whole  of 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


275 


Greater  New  York  and  was  evolved  almost  entirely,  if  not  entirely, 
from  the  development  of  the  most  crowded  districts  of  Manhattan 
Island. 

The  proper  development  of  all  the  boroughs  outside  of  Man- 
hattan requires  a  stricter  limitation  of  tenement  houses  and,  in  his 
judgment,  this  limitation  should  be  different  in  different  zones  or 
districts  of  the  same  borough ;  for  instance,  the  height  limit  which 
would  be  appropriate  to  East  New  York  would  be  entirely  out  of 
place  on  Brooklyn  Heights.  Some  arrangement  should  be  provided 
for  changing  the  zones  or  districts  and  the  limitations,  but  the 
power  to  change  should  be  so  checked  and  guarded  that  changes 
would  not  be  easy,  or  great  injustice  might  result. 

Height  limits  and  area  limits  in  any  zone  or  district  should  apply 
to  all  buildings ;  and  especially  to  all  residential  buildings,  including 
hotels  and  apartment  hotels  and  private  dwellings  as  well  as  tene- 
ment houses.  To  permit  the  erection  of  spires  and  towers  some 
provision  could  be  made,  as,  for  instance,  that  on  non-residential 
buildings  a  spire  or  tower  not  covering  more  than  a  certain  per- 
centage of  the  area  of  the  building  might  be  carried  to  twice  the 
height  of  the  building. 

He  would  urge  the  provision  under  which  in  any  zone  or  district 
a  building  covering  less  than  the  permitted  percentage  of  the  lot 
could  be  increased  in  height ;  for  instance,  in  a  district  where  build- 
ings might  be  limited  to  four  stories,  or  the  equivalent  in  feet,  if 
covering  70  per  cent  of  the  lot ;  another  story  might  be  permitted 
if  only  60  per  cent  of  the  lot  were  covered,  and  still  another  story 
if  only  50  per  cent  were  covered.  His  experience  of  over  thirty 
years  as  an  owner  of  tenement  houses  convinces  him  that  a  six- 
story  building  covering  less  than  half  the  lot,  and  therefore  with 
all  sunlighted  rooms,  is  better  for  the  tenants  than  a  building  with 
rooms  opening  upon  courts  four  stories  in  height  covering  70  per 
cent  of  the  lot.  It  is  evident  also  that  the  whole  neighborhood 
profits  by  the  increased  open  area,  and  the  necessity  for  public 
parks  is  somewhat  diminished. 


Statement  by  Mr.  Ira  H.  Woolson,  Representing  the 
National  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters,  and  Mr.  F.  J. 
Stewart,  Representing  the  New  York  Board  of  Fire 
Underwriters,  October  6,  1913 

Argument  for  height  limitation 

A  reasonable  limitation  in  the  heights  of  buildings  along  the 
main  thoroughfares  and  congested  districts  of  our  city  will  produce 
the  following  results :  the  conflagration  hazard  will  be  lessened ;  the 
danger  to  life  and  property  due  to  isolated  fires  will  be  largely 
reduced;  the  real  property  values  more  equitably  distributed;  and 
the  beauty,  health  and  comfort  of  the  city  promoted. 


276 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Fire  hazard  of  high  buildings 

The  impossibility  of  the  fire  department,  even  with  its  best 
apparatus  and  high-pressure  water  system,  successfully  combating 
from  the  street  a  fire  which  occurs  at  a  height  of  100  feet  or  more 
above  the  street  level  is  generally  acknowledged.  Therefore  the 
only  protection  available  for  such  fires  is  that  afforded  by  hose 
streams  carried  up  from  the  street  level,  interior  standpipe  connec- 
tions, or  automatic  sprinkler  equipment.  As  the  latter  is  seldom 
used  except  in  mercantile  and  manufacturing  buildings,  we  must 
depend  upon  the  first  two  mentioned  means  of  extinguishment  for 
fires  in  the  upper  floors  of  the  majority  of  high  buildings.  Both  of 
these  methods  have  their  limitations,  and  in  case  of  a  sweeping  fire 
causing  severe  exterior  exposure  they  might  become  crippled  or 
inefficient. 

A  strict  classification  of  most  of  our  high  buildings  would  rate 
them  only  as  of  fairly  efficient  fire  resistive  construction,  because 
of  the  unreasonable  opposition  to  the  use  of  wired  glass  or  shutters 
to  protect  against  exterior  exposures,  combined  with  various  other 
prevalent  structural  defects.  This  fact,  coupled  with  the  large 
amount  of  combustible  contents  which  such  buildings  always  house, 
would  not  only  render  them  quite  susceptible  to  simultaneous  fires 
on  many  floors  when  attacked  by  the  intense  hot  blast  created  by 
the  burning  of  a  block  of  near-by  low-grade  buildings,  but  also 
makes  them  weak  in  resisting  a  spread  of  fire  within  their  own 
walls. 

The  possibilities  of  a  fearful  holocaust  in  the  burning  of  such 
a  building  is  apparent.  The  condition  of  several  hundred  or  more 
people  caught  in  the  upper  stories  with  several  floors  below  them 
belching  flame  and  smoke  at  every  crack  and  opening  is  not  pleasant 
to  contemplate.  Even  though  the  building  were  constructed  in  the 
best  manner  possible,  with  enclosed  elevators  and  stairways  or 
smokeproof  towers,  the  danger  to  life  would  still  be  very  great. 
Suppose  that  the  elevator  boys  quit  operating  their  cars  either  from 
fear  or  because  the  shafts  were  filled  with  smoke  and  untenable. 
Either  condition  might  easily  occur.  The  occupants  would  then 
have  to  depend  upon  the  enclosed  stairways  as  their  only  means  of 
escape.  Think  of  this  mass  of  frightened  humanity  fleeing  for 
their  lives  down  narrow  stairways  from  the  twentieth  or  fortieth 
story.  The  physical  effort  involved  in  such  a  flight  would  be  very 
great.  The  chances  are  that  many  would  be  overcome  by  physical 
or  nervous  exhaustion  and  their  helpless  bodies  would  block  the 
passage  for  those  behind.  Panic  would  then  result  with  all  its 
attendant  horrors.  Eire  or  smoke  might  easily  be  added  to  this 
frightful  condition  if  the  building  were  not  of  the  highest  grade 
construction. 

We  do  not  think  this  forecast  is  overdrawn  or  chimerical.  We 
believe  the  conditions  stated  arc  well  founded  possibilities  which 
have  been  greatly  underestimated. 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED 


277 


Should  two  or  more  such  high  buildings  get  fully  aflame  from 
either  of  the  causes  mentioned,  the  chances  of  controlling  the  fire 
within  them  or  of  preventing  the  spread  of  fire  from  them  is  corre- 
spondingly lessened,  and  would  thus  create  a  great  general  hazard 
to  both  life  and  property. 

Limit  at  which  height  should  be  fixed 

In  view  of  the  highly  congested  population  and  values  in  the 
area  being  considered,  and  the  vital  necessity  of  protecting  this  area 
in  order  to  safeguard  the  lives  and  property  of  the  city  as  a  whole, 
we  feel  we  are  fully  justified  in  suggesting  that  the  height  of  all 
buildings  be  limited  to  at  most  125  feet,  except  that  buildings  sub- 
divided by  numerous  partitions,  such  as  office  buildings  and  the 
like,  might  be  allowed  as  high  as  150  feet.  We  would  favor  the 
limitation  of  factory  buildings  to  85  feet  in  height. 

Mercantile  buildings 

We  feel  it  our  duty  to  direct  special  attention  to  the  life  and 
fire  hazard  existing  in  large  mercantile  establishments,  and  trust  it 
may  receive  careful  consideration. 

In  support  of  unlimited  height  and  area  in  such  buildings,  the 
argument  was  recently  presented  before  the  Building  Committee 
of  the  Board  of  Aldermen  that  such  stores  in  this  city  were  really 
very  safe,  because  we  have  no  record  of  large  fires  in  them. 

Statement  was  made  that  it  is  unjust  to  enact  special  legislation 
restricting  the  size  of  such  establishments  until  events  had  demon- 
strated that  distinctive  control  is  necessary.  The  logic  of  such  argu- 
ment is  fallacious.  The  required  proof  would  doubtless  exist  after 
a  fire  had  swept  through  one  of  those  buildings  during  busy  hours, 
and  probably  the  result  would  shock  humanity. 

Certain  facts  exist  in  connection  with  such  buildings  which  are 
undeniable.  They  are  usually  excessive  in  height  and  area.  They 
are  filled  with  highly  combustible  material,  piled  upon  tables,  hung 
in  the  air,  and  displayed  upon  rows  of  shelving  extending  one-third 
the  distance  to  the  ceilings ;  added  to  this  is  the  natural  accumula- 
tion of  refuse  behind  and  under  the  counters.  In  some  of  these 
establishments  several  thousand  employees  are  scattered  over  the 
various  floors,  and  at  times  many  thousand  customers,  mostly  women 
and  children,  crowd  the  narrow  aisles.  It  is  evident  that  a  fire  once 
beyond  control  would  spread  with  frightful  rapidity.  These  asser- 
tions must  be  conceded. 

To  say  that  the  loss  of  life  in  such  a  fire  would  be  appalling  is 
mere  conjecture,  but  we  believe  the  facts  warrant  the  supposition. 

The  installation  of  automatic  sprinklers  greatly  lessens  the 
danger  of  spread  of  fire  through  inflammable  stock  of  this  charac- 
ter. In  fact,  many  of  our  large  mercantile  buildings  of  this  type 
are  already  equipped  with  sprinklers,  but  the  life  hazard  due  to 
panic  still  exists  and  is  augmented  by  excessive  floor  areas. 


278 


HEIGHTS  OF  BUILDINGS  COMMISSION 


Limitation  on  the  area  of  high  buildings 

Therefore,  if  this  subject  be  within  the  province  of  your  Com- 
mission, we  urge  that  it  give  particular  attention  to  limitation  in 
size  of  this  class  of  buildings. 

Regarding  your  inquiry  as  to  a  proper  limitation  of  undivided 
floor  area,  we  would  recommend  as  follows : 

Tenement  houses  when  not  fireproof,  3000  square  feet. 


All  other  non-fireproof  buildings : 

Fronting  on  one  street   5,ooo  sq.  ft. 

Fronting  on  two  streets   7,500  sq.  ft. 

Fronting  on  three  or  more  streets  10,000  sq.  ft. 


Armories,  churches,  auditoriums,  hotels,  light  and  power  sta- 
tions, office  buildings,  railway  stations,  school  buildings  and  col- 
leges, tenements,  theaters,  when  fireproof,  no  restrictions  as  to  area. 

Car  barns,  when  fireproof,  20,000  square  feet. 


All  other  fireproof  buildings : 

Fronting  on  one  street   7,500  sq.  ft 

Fronting  on  two  streets  10,000  sq.  ft. 

Fronting  on  three  or  more  streets  12,500  sq.  ft. 


Except  that  on  the  first  story  only  of  every  fireproof  building,  here- 
after erected  or  occupied  as  a  store,  the  floor  area  may  be  20,000 
square  feet. 

Except  in  car  barns,  all  allowable  floor  areas  mentioned  in  this 
section  may  be  increased  50  per  cent  when  a  standard  equipment 
of  automatic  sprinklers  is  installed. 


INDEX 

Ackermax,  Frederick  L. :  pAGE 

districting    iy2 

districting  versus  restrictions  31-32,173 

limitation  of  height   ^74 

reflective  walls    !74 

Adickes,  Fraxz  : 

introduced  zone  system  in  Altona   95, 112 

Americax  Cities: 

height  limits  in  22  cities   23 

Axgles  of  Light  axd  Light  Obstructiox,  Diagram  1   13 

Artificial  Illumixatiox    251 

Artificial  Light  Perspectives  : 

Exchange  Place   opp.  p.  56 ;  opp.  p.  58 

New  Street   opp.  p.  58 

Austix,  D. : 

high  buildings    175 

Automatic  Sprixklers  : 

Chambers,  Frank  R   201 

in  factories    81-82 

in  high  buildings    84 

Baltimore  : 

churches  exempt  from  height  limit   5 

classification  of  buildings  41-42,72 

constitutionality  of  height  districting   5,34-35 

Baxgs,  F.  R. : 

height  limit  a  benefit  to  real  estate  values   175 

Baxxister,  William  P. : 

arguments  for  height  limit  ,   175 

Bernard,  Alfred  D. : 

congestion    178 

fire   177 

esthetic  considerations    178 

light  and  air   176 

necessity  for  high  buildings   180 

Biltmore  Hotel: 

Diagram  XII   opp.  p.  76 

recommendations  applied  to   66 

Blighted  Districts    182 

Block  Oriextatiox    261 

Board  of  Estimate  axd  Apportioxmext  : 

resolution  creating  Heights  of  Buildings  Committee  and  Com- 
mission   1-2 

Boltox,  Regixald  Pelham  : 

advantage  of  height  limit  to  buildings  already  constructed   185 

advantage  of  light  and  air   184 

blighted  districts    T°2 

corner  lots  should  not  be  favored   185 

cornice  line    *84 

districting  

high  buildings  and  congestion   186 

high  buildings  dangerous  in  case  of  fire   186 

hi,?h  buildings  uneconomical   T8i 

restriction  of  floor  area  as  a  height  limitation   183,185 


280  INDEX 

Boston  :  page 

building  operations    147-148 

Commission  on  Building  Laws   138 

fire  regulations    134 

Height  of  Building  Commission  135,  137-138 

height  districts — 

bibliography  on    148-149 

boundaries    136-138 

buildings  exempt  from  height  limitations  5,136,147 

Commonwealth  Avenue    140-141 

constitutionality   5,  8,  32-34 

Copley  Square    141-146 

District  A    136-137 

District  B    136-140 

height  limit  of  1891   135 

height  limit  of  1892   135 

map  of,  Map  VIII  opp.  p.  32 

payment  of  damages   145-147 

real  estate  interests  favor   21 

State  House    145 

statements  concerning — 

Brainerd,  W.  H   191 

Cabot,  F.  E   199 

Carr,  Samuel    200 

Coolidge,  J.  Randolph   201 

Eliot,  Amory    209 

Everett,  Arthur  G   210 

Harmon,  William  E   234 

Matthews,  Nathan    253 

Sayward,  William  H   263 

Shurtleff,  Arthur  A   265 

Storer,  John  H   268 

Sturgis,  R.  Clipston   268 

Wead,  Leslie  C   271 

Weeks.  W.  B.  P   272 

Wentworth,  Franklin  H   272 

wide  streets    137-140 

Boyd,  David  Knickerbacker  : 

air  and  ventilation   188 

congestion    189 

elevator  service    188 

method  of  limiting  height   190 

BOYNTON,  Edward  B. : 

argument  in  favor  of  height  limit   191 

rules  for  height  limit   191 

zoning    191 

Brainerd.  W.  H. : 

Boston  height  limit   191 

Brent  wo,  Simon: 

Fifth  Avenue    192 

Broadway  : 

average  building  height  on  15,161,163 

average  frontage  height  on   161,163 

sidewalk  congestion  on   19 

street  congestion  on   18 


INDEX 


28l 


Bronx,  The:  pAGE 

brick  buildings  outside  fire  limits,  Map  XVIII  opp.  p.  72 

height  of  residence  buildings  in,  Map  VI  opp.  p.  28 

unimproved  property  in,  Map  IV  opp.  pi  24 

Brooklyn  : 

height  of  residence  buildings  in,  Map  VII  opp.  p.  30 

percentage  of  lot  covered,  Map  XVI  opp.  p.  68 

prevailing  land  values,  Map  XVII  opp.  p.  70 

unimproved  property  in,  Map  V  opp.  p.  26 

Brown,  Charles  S. : 

appearance  of  city   194 

fire  hazard  of  high  buildings   193 

extra  insurance  premiums  because  of  height   194 

high  buildings  and  congestion   193 

high  buildings  depreciate  land  values   194 

high  buildings  uneconomical   193 

high  buildings  injure  real  estate  values   194 

light  and  ventilation   193 

limit  at  which  height  should  be  fixed   192 

Browning,  William  H. : 

argument  for  flat  height  limit   195 

tax  on  excessive  height   196 

Brunnerj  Arnold  W. : 

congestion    197 

Fifth  Avenue    196 

height  limit  a  benefit  to  real  estate  values   197 

Building  Lines  : 

Coolidge,  J.  Randolph   202 

constitutionality  of    36-38 

Building  Police: 

power  of   97, 100, 107 

Bureaus  of  Building  Advice   100 

Bush,  Irving  T. : 

height  fixed  by  contributory  vacant  area   199 

horizontal  exits    x99 

location  of  industries   l9& 

Cabot,  F.  E. : 

fire  appliances    *99 

Carr,  Samuel: 

height  of  buildings  in  Boston   200 

Chambers  Street: 

height  of  buildings  below   101 

Map  III   opp.  p.  22 

Chambers,  Frank  R. : 

automatic  sprinklers    ^01 

enclosed  stairways   

Charleston: 

height  limit   kX'vi  tc-'jR 

Charter  Amendments  Proposed  09,73,75  70 

Chicago  :  - 

height  of  tenements   3 

Church  Street:  *  fi 

average  building  height   t6t  ifa 

average  frontage  height   iU  '  UJ 

City  Planning:  Tce-TC7 

En*1**  JSEg 

Germany      7_l6o 

Sweden   ■  •  •  •   u    -  9 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  New  York   ^  / 


282 


INDEX 


Cleveland  :  pAGE 

height  limit    1 1 

Congestion  : 

Bernard,  Alfred  D   178 

Bolton,  Reginald  Pelham   186 

Boyd,  David  Knickerbacker   189 

Brown,  Charles  S   193 

Coolidge,  J.  Randolph   201 

De  Forest,  Robert  W   203 

Dinvviddie,  Emily  W   205 

Falconer,  Bruce  M   217-218 

Marsh,  Benjamin  C   252 

Coolidge,  J.  Randolph  : 

Boston  height  limits   201 

building  lines    202 

districting    202 

height  of  buildings  in  Paris   201 

Copley  Square: 

height  limit  about   141-145 

Corner  Lots    185 

Cornices  : 

Bolton,  Reginald  Pelham   184 

Killam,  Charles  W   241 

Cubage,  Limitations  on  : 

Germany    98,  112 

Ingersoll,  Raymond  V   237 

Litchfield,  Electus  D   248 

Cubitt,  Horace: 

height  limit  in  London  courts   126-127 

Damages,  Assessment  of   268 

Deeves,  Richard: 

height  should  be  limited   202 

De  Forest,  Robert  W. : 

districting   203 

height  of  buildings  should  be  limited   203 

streets  not  sufficiently  wide  for  high  buildings   203 

Department  Stores  : 

dangerous  in  case  of  fire   229 

Devlin,  Edward  I. : 

argument  for"  height  limitation   204 

districting   .   204 

fire  hazard  of  high  buildings   204 

height  limit  a  benefit  to  real  estate  values   205 

Dinwiddie,  Emily  W. : 

congestion    205-206 

Districting  : 

arguments  for — 

brings  about  uniform  improvement  of  land   30 

conserves  property  values   28 

prevents  congestion  of  population   29 

promotes  public  welfare.....   28 

reduces  obsolescence  of  buildings   3° 

tends  to  fuller  utilization  of  land   29-32 

attitude  of  courts  toward,  in  Germany  108,110-111 

boundaries  of  districts  in  Germany   101 

class  regulations    98 

constitutionality  of    24-27 

complexity  of  German  regulations   96-08 

definition  of    IJ5 

disadvantages  of    io3 


INDEX  283 

Districting — Continued:  PAGE 
effect  of — 

on  business    I0^ 

on  land  values    104-105 

on  real  estate  market  .' I07 

on  rents   105-106 

on  social  conditions   105-108 

height  districts — 

Baltimore    34 

g05*0"  •••  '-32, 134-149 

England    I56 

Germany   48-50,95-108 

Indianapolis    35 

Sweden    j^S 

Washington   35, 150-151 

occupancy  districts — 

Baltimore    41-42 

England    I56 

Germany   48-50, 96, 1 10-1 1 1 

Los  Angeles   43-47, 1 51-154 

Massachusetts    39 

Milwaukee    40-41 

Minneapolis    39-40 

Minnesota    39 

New  York    38 

Ontario    47-48 

Seattle    42-43 

Sweden    158 

Wisconsin    40-41 

statements  on — 

Ackerman,  Frederick  L   172 

Bolton,  Reginald  Pelham   185 

Boynton,  Edward  B   191 

Coolidge,  J.  Randolph   202 

De  Forest,  Robert  W   203 

Devlin,  Edward  1   204 

Elliman,  Lawrence  B   209 

Hardy,  Edward  R   231 

Harmon,  William  E   234 

Ingersoll,  Raymond  V   236 

Kelsey,  Clarence  H   239 

Kenlon,  John    241 

Laidlaw,  Walter    243 

Lindner,  Walter    244-245 

Marsh,  Benjamin  C   252 

Olmsted,  Frederick  Law   258 

Pope,  Robert  Anderson   260-263 

Simon,  Robert  E   266 

Wentworth,  Franklin  H   273 

White,  Alfred  T   274-275 

street  as  unit  of   98 

utilitarian  character  of,  in  Germany   99 

Districting  Versus  Restrictions   173 

Dwelling  Houses  : 

open  space  about   21 

Dwight,  Edmund: 

elevators  as  means  of  exit   206 

elevator  service  in  case  of  fire   206 

elevator  shafts_  as  fire  flues;   207 

elevator  space  in  high  buildings   208 

height  should  be  limited   208 


284 


INDEX 


Dwight,  Edmund — Continued:  page 

high  buildings  not  productive  of  efficiency  in  business   207 

inaccessibility  of  intermediate  floors  in  high  buildings   207 

time  consumed  in  emptying  high  buildings   206 

Elevator  Service: 

Boyd,  David  Knickerbacker   188 

Dwight,  Edmund    206-208 

Guerin,  William    230 

Eliot,  Amory: 

effect  of  height  limit  on  capital   209 

height  limit  a  benefit  to  land  values   209 

Elliman,  Lawrence  B. : 

districting    209 

Fifth  Avenue  limitations   209 

Enclosed  Stairways  : 

Chambers,  Frank  R   200 

English  Town  Planning  Act   155-157 

Eminent  Domain: 

height  limited  by,  in  Boston   140-147 

regulation  of  height  under,  impracticable   7 

Erie  : 

height  limit    II 

Esthetic  Considerations  : 

Falconer,  Bruce  M   220 

Hastings,  Thomas    234 

Litchfield,  Electus  D   246 

European  Cities  : 

height  limit  in  29  cities   23 

Exchange  Place: 

average  building  height  15,161,163 

average  frontage  height   161,163 

sidewalk  congestion    19 

street  congestion    18 

Everett,  Arthur  G. : 

Boston  height  limits   210 

exits    210 

height  of  parapet  walls   210 

traffic    210 

Ewing,  William  : 

set-backs    211 

Exits  : 

Everett,  Arthur  G   210 

factories    81-83 

Guerin,  William    231 

large  buildings    84-85 

Miller,  Rudolph  P   254 

theatres    85 

Factories  : 

automatic  sprinklers  in   81-82 

distribution  of    237 

doorways  in    83 

exits  in    82 

fire  alarm  signals  in   82 

fire  drills  in    82 

fire  hazard  in   264 

fireproof  requirements  in   80-83 

fireproof  stairways    81-82 

hallwavs  in    83 

height  of   80-83 

horizontal  exits  in   81-82 


INDEX  285 

Factories — Continued:  page 

limitation  on  occupancy  in   81-82 

open  space    86 

prevailing  height  of,  in  Manhattan,  Map  II  opp.  p.  18 

Falconer,  Bruce  M. : 

air    214 

arguments  for  height  limit   212 

congestion    217-218 

esthetic  considerations    220 

Fifth  Avenue   52-53,211-212,221-223 

fire   215-217 

loft  buildings    220-221 

prevention  of  wider  area  of  development   218-219 

sunshine  and  light   212-214 

wind  currents    214-215 

Fifth  Avenue: 

condition  of    51-55 

height  of  buildings  on,  Map  XIV  opp.  p.  52 

statements  concerning — 

Brentano,  Simon    192 

Brunner,  Arnold  W   196 

Elliman,  Lawrence  B   209 

Falconer,  Bruce  M   211-223 

Harmon.  William  E   234 

Simon,  Robert  E   266 

Yeiller,  Frank  D   269-270 

Fifth  Avenue  Association: 

recommendations  of    222 

Fifth  Avenue  Building: 

Diagram  IV   opp.  p.  76 

recommendations  applied  to   63-64 

Fifth  Avenue  Commission  : 

recommendation  of   5I»53iI96 

Fire  Drills  : 

in  factories    82 

Fire-Escapes    85 

Fire  Hazard  of  High  Buildings  : 

Bernard.  Alfred  D   1/7 

Bolton,  Reginald  Pelham   T86 

Brown,  Charles  S   J93 

Devlin,  Edward  1   204 

Dwight.  Edmund    206-207 

Falconer,  Bruce  M   215-217 

Gernon,  James  L   229 

Guerin.  William    230 

Kenlon,  John    239-241 

Shientag.  Bernard  L   264 

Stewart,  F.  J   276 

Wentworth,  Franklin  H   273 

Woolson,  Ira  H   276 

Fire  Limits    80 

Fire  Losses    239 

Fireproof  Buildings  : 

number  in  Manhattan   162 

requirements  covering   70.80,83 

Fireproof  Shutters    °° 

Fire  Walls  : 

Guerin.  William    231 

Miller.  Rudolph    254 


286  INDEX 

Flat  Iron  Building:  page 

Diagram  X   opp.  p.  76 

recommendations  applied  to   65 

Flagg,  Ernest: 

advantages  and  disadvantages  of  high  buildings   223-224 

effect  of  height  limitation   227-228 

methods  of  limiting  height   224-226 

plan  for  limiting  height   226 

Floor  Area,  Restriction  on,  as  Height  Limitation   183,185 

Frame  Buildings: 

limitation  on  height   80 

number  in  Manhattan   162 

open  space    87 

Frankfort  : 

districting  in   40-50,95-96 

map  of  districts,  Map  XIII  opp.  p.  48 

Fort  Wayne: 

height  limit  in   11 

Freund,  Ernest: 

classification  under  police  power   24 

definition  of  police  power   8 

reasonableness  a  limitation  on  the  police  power   26 

Front  Gardens    103 

German  Cities  : 

districting  in   47-50,94-119 

German  Law  and  Administration   108-113 

Gernon,  James  L. : 

fire  hazards  in  department  stores   229 

loft  buildings    228 

Greve,  William  M. : 

height  limit  a  benefit  to  land  values   229 

"Gross  Disfigurement"  of  Streets  Prohibited   99 

Guerin,  William  : 

conflagration  hazard    230 

elevator  congestion    230 

exits,  stairways  and  fire-escapes   231 

fire  drills    230 

fire  fighting    230 

fire  walls    231 

Hardy,  Edward  R. : 

factories    231 

fire  fighting  and  insurance  rates   232-233 

Harmon.  William  E. : 

Boston  height  limits   234 

do  sky-scrapers  pay?   233 

Fifth  Avenue  limitations   234 

towers    233 

zoning   •   234 

Hastings,  Thomas  : 

esthetic  considerations    234 

height  limit  a  benefit  to  land  values   235 

surtax  on  excessive  height   235 

unlimited  height  a  calamity   234 

Height,  Limitation-  of: 

Ackcrman,  Frederick  L   174 

Bangs,  F.  R   175 

Bannister,  William  P   175 

Boyd*   David   Knickerbocker   too 

Boynton.  Edward  B   191 

Brown,  Charles  S   T92 


INDEX  287 

Height,  Limitation  of — Continued:  page 

Browning,  William  H   195 

Bush,  Irving  T   199 

Deeves,  Richard    202 

De  Forest,  Robert  W   203 

Devlin,  Edward  I   204 

Dwight,  Edmund    208 

Falconer,  Bruce  M   212 

Flagg,  Ernest    224-228 

Hastings,  Thomas    234 

Kelsey,  Clarence  H   238-239 

Litchfield,  Electus  D   247-249 

Lowinson,  Oscar    249 

Ludlow,  William  0   249-251 

Miller,  Rudolph  _  P   254 

Olmsted,  Frederick  Law   255,258 

Shientag,  Bernard  L   263 

Simon,  Robert  E   265 

Stewart,  F.  J  275,277-278 

Wentworth,  Franklin  H   272 

Woolson.  Ira  H  275,277-278 

Height  Limits  : 

American  cities   23,32,36.68 

Baltimore    34 

Boston   32, 134-149 

England    156 

European  cities    23 

Germany   48-50,95-119 

Indianapolis    35 

London    120-127 

Paris   127-134 

Sweden    158 

Washington   35, 150-151 

Height  Regulations  : 

based  on  minimum  angle  of  light   12-14 

based  on  multiple  of  street  width   115-116 

based  on  street  width   10-12 

general  scope  of   7~io 

history  of  movement  for   245 

methods  of  controlling   4-14 

uniform  for  all  buildings   4 

varying  with  class  of  building   4~7 

varying  with  particular  district   7 

Heights  of  Buildings  Commission: 

letter  transmitting  report  of   iii 

resolution  appointing    1-2 

High  Buildings  : 

advantages  of    223 

cause  tuberculosis    242-243 

cost  of  insurance  166-168,194,232-233 

dangerous  to  public  health   18-19 

dangerous  to  public  safety   17 

depreciate  land  values — 

Brown.  Charles  S   *94 

Brunner.  Arnold  W   197 

Devlin.  Edward  1   205 

Eliot,  Amory    209 

Greve.  William  M   229 

Hastings.  Thomas    235 

Kelsey,  Clarence  H   238 

Wead",  Leslie  C   271 


288  INDEX 

High  Buildings — Continued:  Page 

detrimental  to  property  values   21 

disadvantages  of    223 

equipment  against  tire   17-18 

injure  public  comfort  and  convenience   19 

not  good  investments   57-58 

Harmon,  William  E   233 

prevent  wider  area  of  development — 

De  Berard,  Alfred   178 

Falconer,  Bruce  M   218-219 

relation  of,  to  insurance  rates   232-233 

uneconomical — 

Bolton,  Reginald  Pelham   181 

Brown,  Charles  S   192 

Dwight,  Edmund    207 

unprofitable  investments    19-21 

vacancies  in    169-170 

Horizontal  Exits    199 

Hotels  : 

height  of,  in  Manhattan,  Map  XX  opp.  p.  162 

open  space  about   21,86 

Housing  in  German  Cities   114-119 

Hoxie,  George  L. : 

surtax  on  excessive  height   235 

Indianapolis,  Height  Districts  in   35 

Industrial  Districts  (see  Districting) 

Industries,  Location  of   198 

Ingersoll,  Raymond  V.  : 

distribution  of  factories   237 

districting    236 

limitation  on  cubage   237 

width  of  streets   237 

Insurance  Premiums: 

relation  of  high  buildings  to  166-168,  194 

Kelsey,  Clarence  H. : 

arguments  for  height  limit   238 

city  hurt  by  high  buildings   238 

districting    239 

rule  for  height  limit   239 

Kenlon,  John  : 

districting   '.   241 

fire  loss    239 

height  should  be  limited   239 

safety  of  high  buildings   240 

Killam,  Charles  W. : 

cornices  and  parapet  walls   241 

tenement  house  law   241 

Knickerbocker  Hotel: 

Diagram  XI  opp.  p.  76 

recommendations  applied  to   65 

Knopf,  S.  Adolphus: 

high  buildings  and  tuberculosis   242-243 

Laidlaw,  Walter  : 

zoning    243 

Land,  Municipal  Ownership  of   112 

Land  Values  : 

in  Berlin    113-114 

in  Brooklyn,  map  of,  Map  XVII  opp.  p.  70 

in  Frankfort    114 

in  New  York    114 


INDEX 


289 


Licenses  for  Exceptional  Buildings  in  Germany  107,111-112 

Light  and  Air: 

Bernard,  Alfred  D   ijq 

Bolton,  Reginald  Pelham   184 

Boyd,  David  Knickerbacker   188 

Brown,  Charles  S   193 

Falconer,  Bruce  M   212-214 

Marks,  L.  B   251 

Miller,  Rudolph  P   254 

Olmsted,  Frederick  Law   256-258 

Shientag,  Bernard  L   263 

Lindner,  Walter: 

districting   244-245 

Litchfield,  Electus  D. : 

attitude  of  courts   246-247 

esthetic  considerations    246 

history  of  movement  for  height  limitation   245 

limit  volume,  not  height   247-248 

LODGING-HOUSES  ', 

buildings  on  same  lot  as   88 

height  limit  on  non-fireproof  buildings   83 

open  space  about   22,87 

Loft  Buildings: 

Falconer,  Bruce  M   220 

Gernon,  James  L   228 

prevailing  height  of,  in  Manhattan,  Map  XX  opp.  p.  162 

London  : 

building  restrictions  in   120-127 

definition  of  height   120 

height  of  court  walls   124-127 

height  of  street  walls   120-121 

Los  Angeles: 

map  of  residential  and  industrial  districts,  Map  XII  opp.  p.  44 

residential  and  industrial  districts  in  43-47,72,151-154 

Lowinson,  Oscar: 

method  of  limiting  height   249 

Ludlow,  William  O. : 

regulations  of  building  height   249-251 

Manhattan  : 

average  building  height  on  certain  streets   15 

average  frontage  height   162 

average  height  of  buildings   15 

buildings  classified  by  height  and  use  16-17, 161-165 

census  of  high  buildings  in   15 

general  classification  of  buildings,   Map  XXI  .opp.  p.  164 

general  height  of  all  buildings,  Map  I   .opp.  p.  16 

height  of  buildings  below  Chambers  Street,  Map  III  opp.  p.  22 

height  of  buildings  in   161-165 

height  of  factories,  Map  II  opp.  p.  18 

height  of  office  buildings,  hotels  and  storage  lofts,  Map  XX  opp.  p.  162 

large  portion  of,  inadequately  utilized   29 

number  of  buildings   T6i 

number  of  fireproof  buildings   162 

number  of  frame  buildings   162 

percentage  of  lot  covered,  Map  XV  opp.  p.  66 

Marks,  L.  B. : 

artificial  illumination    251-252 


290  INDEX 

Marsh,  Benjamin  C. :  page 

congestion    252 

zoning    252 

Massachusetts  : 

height  limits  in  cities   135 

height  of  tenements  in  second  class  cities   4 

residential  and  industrial  districts   39 

tenement  house  law   241 

Matthews,  Nathan  : 

adoption  of  Boston  height  limit   253 

Miller,  Rudolph  P. : 

administrative  questions    254 

building  census  of  Manhattan   15-16 

exits    254 

fire  walls    254 

light  and  ventilation   254 

method  of  limiting  height   254 

tower  stairs    255 

Milwaukee: 

map  of  residential  and  industrial  districts,  Map  XI  opp.  p.  41 

residential  and  industrial  districts  in  40-41,72 

Minneapolis  : 

map  of  residential  and  industrial  districts,  Map  X  opp.  p.  40 

residential  and  industrial  districts  in   39,72 

Minnesota  : 

residential  and  industrial  districts  in   39 

Munich  : 

map  of  height  districts,  Map  XIX  opp.  p.  104 

Municipal  Building: 

recommendations  applied  to   65 

Murphy,  John  J. : 

tenement  house  law   255 

Nassau  Street: 

average  building  height  15,  J^3 

average  frontage  height   161,163 

sidewalk  congestion    19 

street  congestion      18 

New  Equitable  Building  : 

Diagram  VI   opp.  p.  76 

recommendations  applied  to  •.   64 

New  Orleans  : 

height  limit  in   II 

New  Street  : 

average  building  height  15,161,163 

average  frontage  height   161,  163 

sidewalk  congestion    19 

street  congestion    18 

New  York  Second-class  Cities: 

height  limit  for  residential  buildings   11 

residential  and  industrial  districts   3^,73 

Nolen,  John  : 

towers    255 

Non-firf.proof  Buildings: 

bright  of   79.80.83 

size  of    83 

Office  Buildings  : 

fire  appliances  required   83-85 

height  limit  on  non-fireproof  buildings   ^ 

open  space    22, 86 

pre  vailing  height  of,  in  Manhattan,  Map  XX  opp.  p.  162 


INDEX  29I 

Olmsted,  Frederick  Law  :  PAGE 

classification  of  buildings   260 

districting-   258 

height  on  street  front  ......... .[.[]. .  258-259 

light  and  ventilation                     256-258 

method  of  limiting  height   255 

rear  courts    259 

towers  259-260 

One-family  Houses  in  Germany   I05 

Ontario  : 

residential  and  industrial  districts  in   47-48 

Open  Space  in  German  Cities   [  117-119 

Parapet  Walls  : 

height  of,  in  Boston   210 

Paris  : 

building  restrictions  in   127-134 

height  limit    127-133 

open  space    133-134 

Percentage  of  Lot  Covered  :  a 

Brooklyn,  Map  XVI  opp.  p.  68 

Manhattan,  Map  XV  opp.  p.  66 

Plaza  Hotel: 

recommendations  applied  to   66 

Police  Power: 

based  on  reasonableness   14 

exercise  of    8-10 

Pope,  Robert  Anderson  : 

block  orientation    261 

districting   260,261-263 

Recommendations  : 

charter  amendments   69,73,75-78 

cornices,  limitation  on  width  of   59,  61 

courts    60-63 

definition  of  height   61 

dwellings    75 

economic  height  limit   60 

exceptions  from    63 

factories    74 

Fifth  Avenue — 

factories  should  be  excluded  from   72 

height  limit  for   74 

height  districts    66-71 

height  at  street  line   59-6i 

industrial  and  residential  districts   71-73 

loss  in  floor  area  proportioned  to  height  59-60,62 

mansards    59 

open  space — 

corner  lots    59 

interior  lots    59 

practical  application  of,  illustrated — 

Biltmore  Hotel    66 

Diagram  XII   opp.  p.  76 

Fifth  Avenue  Building   63-64 

Diagram  IV   opp.  p.  76 

Flat  Iron  Building   65 

Diagram  X   opp.  p.  76 

Knickerbocker  Hotel    65 

Diagram  XI   opp.  p.  76 

Municipal  Building    65 

Diagram  IX   opp.  p.  76 


292 


INDEX 


Recommendations — Continued: 

practical  application  of,  illustrated — Continued —  page 

New  Equitable  Building   64 

Diagram  VI   opp.  p.  76 

on  typical  interior  lots   60,62 

Diagram  II   opp.  p.  60 

Diagram  III   opp.  p.  62 

Plaza  Hotel    66 

Singer  Building    64 

United  States  Realty  Building   65 

Diagram  VII   opp.  p.  76 

Whitehall  Building    65 

Diagram  VIII   opp.  p.  76 

Woolworth  Building    64 

Diagram  V   opp.  p.  76 

principles  determining    66-68 

rear  courts    59 

set-backs    59-6l 

street  width,  definition  of   61 

summary  of    59 

towers    60,  63 

Reflective  Walls    174 

Rental  Values  : 

impaired  by  high  buildings   56 

Residence  Buildings,  Height  of: 

in  Bronx,  The,  Map  VI  opp.  p.  28 

in  Brooklyn,  Map  VII  opp.  p.  30 

Residential  and  Industrial  Districts  : 

American  cities    3S-48 

German  cities   48-50,96-119 

(see  also  Districting) 

Restrictions  Versus  Districting   173 

Restrictive  Covenants  : 

Germany    98 

ineffectiveness  of   28,30-32 

Paris    100 

Vienna    100 

Richmond: 

building  lines  in   36-38 

Sayward,  William  H. : 

height  limit  in  Boston   263 

Seattle : 

classification  of  buildings   4^-43 

Set-backs  : 

Anhalt    116 

Baden    116 

Bavaria    116 

Boston    135 

Brunswick   I   1 16 

Hcssen    116 

London    121 

Paris    133 

Saxony   116 

statements  concerning — 

Ewing,  William    211 

Wcntworth,  Franklin  H   273 

White,  Alfred  T   274 

Shientag,  Bernard  L. : 

fire  hazard  in  factories   264-265 

height  of  commercial  buildings   263 

light  and  ventilation  in  factories   263-264 


INDEX  293 

Shurtleff,  Arthur  A. :  page 

height  limit  in  Boston   265 

Simon,  Robert  E. : 

argument  for  height  limitation   265 

Fifth  Avenue    266 

zoning    266 

Sixger  Building  : 

recommendations  applied  to   64 

Smith,  Atterbury: 

tenement-house  law    266-267 

Smith,  Howard  C. : 

assessment  of  damages   268 

Stairways  : 

number  required  in  large  buildings   84.85 

Staxdpipes    83 

Statements  Submitted  to  Commission,  List  of   171 

Stewart,  F.  J. : 

argument  for  height  limitation   275 

fire  hazard  of  high  buildings   276 

limit  at  which  height  should  be  fixed   277 

limitation  on  area  of  high  buildings   278 

mercantile  buildings    277 

Storer,  John  H. : 

height  limit  in  Boston   268 

Street  Architecture    100-101 

Street  Congestion  : 

caused  by  high  buildings   5§ 

Street  as  Unit  of  Districting   102,115 

Streets : 

width  of    237 

Sturgis,  R.  Clipston: 

Boston  height  limits   268 

towers    269 

Subdivision  of  Land: 

Swedish  cities    :59 

Vienna    99 

Surtax  on  High  Buildings  : 

Browning,  William  H   196 

Carrere,  John  M   246 

Hastings,  Thomas    235 

Hoxie,  George  L   235-236 

Swan,  Herbert  S. : 

building  restrictions  in — 

Boston    I34-H9 

London    120-127 

Los  Angeles    I5I~I54 

New  York    79-93 

Paris    127-134 

Washington    150-15 1 

English  Town  Planning  Act   I55_I|7 

Swedish  Town  Planning  Act   157-100 

Swedish  Town  Planning  Act   i57-ioo 

Tenements  : 

definition  of  height  of   79 

buildings  on  same  lot  as...   93 

exceptions  from  height  limit   ^° 

fireproof  requirements  in   79 

inner  courts    92 

limitation  on  height   2I»79 


294  INDEX 

Tenements — Continued:  page 

open  space   22,8^-93 

outer  courts    90-91 

rear  tenements    93 

wooden  tenements    80 

yards    89-90 

Tenement  House  Law  : 

Murphy,  John  J   255 

Smith,  Atterbury    266-267 

White,  Alfred  T   273-274 

Theaters  : 

open  space  in  22,87,88-93 

Thompson,  W. : 

amenity  in  city  planning   156 

Toronto  : 

residential  and  industrial  districts  in   47-48 

Towers  : 

Harmon,  William  E   233 

Nolen,  John    255 

Sturgis,  R.  Clipston   269 

Tower  Stairs    255 

Traffic    210 

Trinity  Place  and  Church  Street  : 

average  building  height  on   15 

sidewalk  congestion  on   19 

street  congestion  on   18 

Tuberculosis  : 

relation  to  high  buildings  101,242-243 

traceable  to  dark  work  places   19 

"Unfinished  Streets"    101,113 

Unimproved  Property: 

Bronx,  The,  Map  IV  opp.  p.  24 

Brooklyn,  Map  V  opp.  p.  26 

United  States  Realty  Building: 

Diagram  VII  opp.  p.  76 

recommendations  applied  to   65 

Vacancies  in  High  Buildings   160-170 

Veiller,  Frank  D. : 

Fifth  Avenue   •   260-270 

Vienna  : 

height  limit    Joo 

photographs  illustrating  effect  of  height  limit  opp.  p.  100 

subdivision  of  land   99 

Washington: 

height  districting  in  11,30,150-151 

map  showing  height  limits,  Map  IX  opp.  p.  30 

Water-tanks  on  Roof   °4 

Wead,  Leslie  C. : 

Boston  height  limits   27* 

effect  on  fireproof  buildings   271 

height  limit  a  benefit  to  real  estate   271 

Weeks.  W.  B.  P.: 

Boston  height  limits   2'2 

Wen 'i  worth,  Franklin  H. : 

argument  for  height  limitation  

districting    2J\ 

fire  hazard  of  sky-scrapers   g» 

set-backs    73 


INDEX  295 

White,  Alfred  T. :  page 

districting    274 

set-backs    274 

tenement  house  law   271,-274 

Whitehall  Building  : 

Diagram  VIII   opp.  p.  76 

recommendations  applied  to   65 

Williams,  Frank  Backus  : 

German  zone  building  regulations   94-119 

Wind  Currents    214 

Wisconsin  : 

residential  and  industrial  districts  in   40 

Wooden  Tenements  : 

height  of    80 

Woolson,  Ira  H. : 

argument  for  height  limitation   275 

fire  hazard  of  high  buildings   276 

limit  at  which  height  should  be  fixed   277 

limitation  on  area  of  high  buildings   278 

mercantile  buildings    277 

Wool  worth  Building: 

Diagram  V   opp.  p.  76 

recommendations  applied  to   64 

Youngstown  : 

height  limit  in   11 

Zoning  (see  Districting) 


lEx  HtbrtB 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  book 

Because  it  has  been  said 
"Ever  thing  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book." 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 

(ill  I  <>l  Si  ^  MOI  l<  U.  1)1  RSI  ()l  I)  YORK  LlUK  \m 


